Govpub C13

S
NAT'L INST. OF STAND & TECH
NBS
Reference
PUBLICATIONS AlllDb E( 70
NBSIR 84-2860
Performance of
Field Hydraulic
One- and Two-Story Residential
Plumbing Systems With
Reduced-Size Vents
Robert S. Wyly
Plumbing Consultant
and
Lawrence S. Galowin
U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Bureau of Standards
Center for Building Technology
Building Equipment Division
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
May 1984
Issued October 1 984
Sponsored by
Tri Services,
Department of Defense,
and
QC
Department of Housing and Urban Development
100
.U56
NO. 84-2860
1984
NATJONAl BUREAU!
OF STANDARDS •
LIBRARY ,
NBSIR 84-2860
daoo
FIELDHYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF
ONE- AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL
no. o
PLUMBING SYSTEMS WITH
REDUCED-SIZE VENTS MM
Robert S. Wyly
Plumbing Consultant
and
Lawrence S. Galowin
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards
Center for Building Technology
Building Equipment Division
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
May 1984
Issued October 1984
Sponsored by
Tri Services,
Department of Defense,
and
Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Director
ABSTRACT
This report describes hydraulic tests of drain-waste-vent systems with

reduced-size vents installed in single-family housing units at Andrews Air
Force Base, Camp Springs, Maryland. The vent systems of six field units were
sized according to a procedure based on findings in prior laboratory investi-
gations. The tests reported were conducted on three of the units before occu-
pancy. Principal measurements made were trap-seal reduction and pneumatic
pressure excursions in selected vents, using laboratory test procedures adapted
to field conditions. Results of the preocupancy tests showed satisfactory
performance with the reduced-size vents. A procedure for the design of reduced-
size vent systems is presented that provides methods for plumbing designers and
groups engaged in updating plumbing codes.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The program described in this report originated in response to a technical

implementation proposal prepared by Robert S. Wylyl for Paul Land, Directorate
of Civil Engineering, U.S. Air Force. The work was conducted under the admin-
istrative direction of Lawrence S. Galowin. Mary Jane (Orloski) Phillips^
directed activities relating to the design, and installation of the reduced-
size vents, planned and conducted the preoccupancy tests, and prepared a draft
report presenting the results. The design, development and installation of
the automated data acquisition system and instrumentation package was directed
by Richard A. Grot, assisted by Lynn Schuman. Robert W. Beausoliel, Grover C.
Sherlin, Jr. and Robert S. Wyly contributed recommendations on instrumentation
design and measurement procedures. Members of the NBS Instrument Shop are
acknowledged for their work in constructing some of the special sensors.
Assistance in the evaluation of the as-built systems to determine conformance
of the drainage piping to the appropriate model plumbing code was provided by
George Williams, Chief Plumbing Inspector, Fairfax County, VA. and by Dee
,
Rathbone, Plumbing Engineer. Capt. Kenneth Hanna (USAF) provided liaison

between the NBS project staff, the Andrews Air Force Base Civil Engineering
Office, the plumbing contractor, and the occupants of the test houses.
Robert S. Wyly and Lawrence S. Galowin expanded the initial draft report
prepared by Mary Jane (Orloski) Phillips and consolidated the design criteria
in the appendices from other NBS reports.
The work was first sponsored by the Directorate of Civil Engineering, U.S. Air
Force and later by the Building Research Committee of the Tri Services. A
significant portion of the project costs to obtain field data on water usage
and frequency of fixture operation was borne by the NBS Center for Building
Technology. The preparation of this report was sponsored by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
1
Currently Plumbing Consultant.
O
^ Currently Mechanical Engineer, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Department of
the Navy.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES . * . ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
DEFINITIONS xii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF PROGRAM 1
1.2 BACKGROUND 1
1.3 PERFORMANCE CONCEPTS AND GENERAL APPROACH 2
2. SIZING OF VENTS 5
2.1 SIZING CRITERIA 5

2.1.1 Traditional Criteria 5
2.1.2 Criteria for RSV 5
2.2 APPLICATION OF RSV CRITERIA TO THREE DWV DESIGNS 5
3. INSTALLATION AND TESTING OF RSV SYSTEMS IN THE FIELD 17
3.1 ORGANIZATION AND SEQUENCE OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES 17

3.2 INSTALLATION OF INSTRUMENTATION AND REDUCED-SIZE VENTS 17
3.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 18
3.3.1 Instrumentation 18
3.3.2 Test Procedures: Preoccupancy Tests 19
3.4 DATA SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 21
3.4.1 Discharge Characteristics of Fixtures 21
3.4.2 Trap-Seal Reduction and Vent Pressure with Vent
Terminal Open 21
3.4.3 Trap-Seal Reduction and Vent Pressure with Vent
Terminal Closed 23
4. CONCLUSIONS 37
4.1 ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE OF THE RSV SYSTEM AT ANDREWS AIR FORCE

BASE AND ADEQUACY OF THE RSV CRITERIA 37
4.2 COST CONSIDERATIONS 37
4.3 RESIDUAL ISSUES AND CODE ACCEPTANCE 37
4.3.1 Residual Issues 37
4.3.2 Formulation of Code Changes and Generally Accepted
Design Procedures 38
5. REFERENCES 39
v
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
APPENDIX A. PREOCCUPANCY TESTS: DETAILED INFORMATION A-l

A.l DATA WITH VENT TERMINAL OPEN A-l
A. 2 DATA WITH VENT TERMINAL CLOSED A-2
APPENDIX B. POST-OCCUPANCY STUDY B-l

B. l APPROACH AND OBJECTIVE B-l
B. 2 RESULTS B-2
APPENDIX C. RECOMMENDED CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN AND

INSTALLATION OF REDUCED-SIZE VENTS FOR ONE- AND TWO-
STORY HOUSING UNITS C-l
C. l INTRODUCTION C-l
C.2 GENERAL LIMITATIONS C~3
C. 3 PRELIMINARY DATA C-4
C.4 SIZING PROCEDURE C-5
C.4.1 Activity Sequence and Sizing Criteria C-5
C.4. Illustrative Examples C-6
C.5 INSTALLATION GUIDELINES AND DATA FOR BUILDING OWNER C-7
C.6 APPROVAL OF RSV DESIGN C-9
C.7 CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY ON RSV C-9
vi
1
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Organization and Sequence of Activities Relating to

Preoccupancy Hydraulic Tests . . 24
Table 2. Characteristics of Instruments and Purposes for

Which Used 25
Table 3. Symbols for Fixtures 26
Table 4. Water Level in Waste Fixtures for Discharge Rate

Measurements 27
Table 5. Guide for Selecting Test Loads for Residential Plumbing

Systems 28
Table 6. Plan for Testing Sequence and Certain Test Conditions in

Preoccupancy Hydraulic Tests 29
Table 7. Waste Fixture Discharge Characteristics Determined from

Field Calibrations of Fixtures In Place 30
Table 8. Water Closet Water Consumption Measured in D/a Unit 31
Table 9. Summary of Findings on Trap-Seal Reductions D, E, and F

Houses with Vent Terminals Open 32
Table 10. Summary of Findings on Vent Pressures in D, E, and F

Houses with Vent Terminals Open 33
Table A. 1.1 Trap-Seal Reduction with Vent Terminal Open A-4
Table A. 2.1 Summary of Findings on Trap-Seal Reductions in D and F

Houses with Vent Terminal Closed A-7
Table A. 2. 2 Trap-Seal Reduction with Vent Terminal Closed A-8
Table A. 2. 3 Effect on Idle Trap-Seal Reduction of Repeated Loading

without Refilling Traps between Runs, with Vent Terminal
Closed A- 10
Table A. 2. 4 Vent Pressure Data for the D/a Unit with Vent Terminal
Closed, W1 + W2 + T2 Discharged A- 1
Table B.2.1 Water Consumption in Occupied Test Unit D/a and Distribution
by Fixture and Outlet (data sample covering a 5 day
period) b-4
vii
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
Table B.2.2 Water Consumption in Occupied Test Unit F/a and Distribution
by Fixture and Outlet (data sample covering a 5 day
period) B-5
Table C.4.1 Drainage Fixture Unit Load Ratings for Various Plumbing
Fixtures . C-l 1
Table C.4.2 Minimum Sizes for Individual and Common Fixture Vents and
for Stack Vents C-12
Table C.4.3 Minimum Sizes for Branch Vents C-13
Table C.4.4 Combinations of Three Fixture Vent Sizes Requiring a

Branch Vent Two Pipe Sizes Larger than Largest Fixture
Vent Served by Branch Vent C-14
Table C.4.5 Internal Cross Sectional Areas of Various Nominal Sizes

of Pipe C-15
Table C.4.6 Minimum Sizes and Maximum Lengths for Vent Stacks C-16
Table C.4.7 Classification and Sizing of Dry Vents (Figure C.4.2,

Example 1) C— 17
Table C.4.8 Classification and Sizing of Dry Vents (Figure C.4.4,

Example 2) C-18
Table C.4.9 Sizing of Vent Headers (Figure C.4.5, Example 2) C-19
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Aerial view of test houses 4
Figure 2. Floor plan for D-house (as designed)
Figure 3. Floor plan for E-house (as designed) 8
Figure 4. Floor plan for F-house (as designed) 9
Figure 5. Original design, D-house soil, waste, and vent piping,

showing vent size reductions obtainable from RSV
criteria 10
Figure 6. Original design. E-house soil, waste, and vent piping,

criteria 11
Figure 7. Original design, F-house soil, waste, and vent piping,

criteria 12
Figure 8. Modified original design, F-house soil, waste, and vent

piping, showing manifolding of vent terminals and vent
size reductions obtainable from RSV criteria 13
Figure 9. As-built design, D-house soil, waste, and vent piping,

showing vent sizes obtained from RSV criteria 14
Figure 10. As-built design. E-house soil, waste, and vent piping,
Figure 11. As-built design, F-house soil, waste, and vent piping,
Figure 12. Instrumentation and data acquisition system 34
Figure 13. Method for measurement of cumulative time outside

preset pressure range 35
Figure 14. Definition of trap-seal reductions for testing purposes ... 36
Figure A. 2.1 Pattern of trap failures with repetitive, heavy loading

and closed vent terminal A- 12
Figure B.1.1 Schematic of automatic monitoring instrumentation for

post-occupancy tests B-6
Figure B.1.2 Schematic of post-occupancy field data acquisition system . B-7
ix
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Page
Figure B.2.1 Distribution of cold water flow rates in master bath

shower. D/a unit (data sample covering a 5 day period) .... B-8
Figure B.2.2 Distribution of hot water flow rates in master bath

shower, D/a unit (data dample covering a 5 day period) .... B-9
Figure B.2.3 Distribution of combined hot and cold water flow rates
in master bath shower. D/a unit (data sample covering a
5 day period) B-10
Figure B.2.4 Distribution of combined hot and cold water flow rates
in common bath shower head. D/a unit (data samples covering
a 5 day period) B-ll
Figure B.2.5 Distribution of cold water flow rates in master bath

shower, F/a unit (data sample covering a 5 day period) .... B-12
Figure B.2.6 Distribution of hot water flow rates in master bath

shower, F/a unit (data sample covering a 5 day period) .... B-13
Figure B.2.7 Distribution of combined hot and cold water flow rates in
master bath shower, F/a unit (data sample covering a 5 day
period) B-14
Figure C.4.1 Soil-waste-vent piping for 2-story single family

townhouse, showing a standard DWV design conforming to
the applicable plumbing code (compare with figure C.4.2
for RSV ) 020
townhouse, showing reduced sizes of dry vents obtainable
from RSV design criteria (compare with figure C.4.1 for
standard venting) 021
residence, showing a standard DWV design conforming to
the applicable plumbing code (compare with figure C.4.4
for RSV) 022
residence, showing reduced sizes of dry vents obtainable
from RSV design criteria (compare with figure C.4.3 for
standard venting) 023
x
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Page

residence, showing the use of a vent header to reduce the
number of roof penetrations (compare with figures C.4.3
and C.4.4 showing five penetrations) 024
xi
DEFINITIONS
In this report, a number of terms are used that require specialized definition
beyond the dictionary meaning of the words. Some terms used are adequately
defined in plumbing codes, but others are used in such a sense as to require
modified definition for the purposes of this report. Therefore, the following
definitions are provided as an aid to understanding.
Blowback - the ejection of suds, air, or other gases through the trap-seal
to the room side of a trap as a result of excessive positive pressure on
the drain side of the trap.
Branch - any part of the piping system other than a main, riser, or stack.
Branch vent - a vent pipe to which two or more fixture vents are connected
and which terminates by connection to a vent stack or a stack vent.
Building drain - that part of the lowest piping of a drainage system which
receives the discharge from soil, waste, and other drainage pipes inside
the walls of the building and conveys it to the building sewer.
Common vent - a fixture vent connecting at the junction of two fixture

drains and serving as a vent for both fixtures.
Cumulative dH - trap-seal reduction of an idle trap after a series of

fixture discharges without refilling the idle trap between such discharges.
dH - the amount of decrease in trap-seal depth from full-seal depth of an

idle trap following the discharge of other fixture(s) into the system.
Dip of trap - the highest point on the internal vertical cross section of
the trap at the lowest portion of the bend (inverted siphon).
dP - peak vent pressure (positive or negative) occurring during the

discharge of fixtures into the system.
Dry vent - any vent that does not carry water or waterborne wastes.
Fixture vent - a vent that provides the primary ventilation for one or
two traps located in the proximity of the base of the vent.
Flood-level rim - the top edge of a receptacle or fixture bowl from which
water can overflow in the absence of or malfunction of an overflow device
at a lower elevation.
Frost closure - the partial or complete closure of a roof vent in cold

weather by the formation of a layer of frost on the inner surface of the
vent.
xii
Individual vent - a fixture vent installed to vent a single fixture and so
connected with the vent system or with the open air that free movement of
air is possible at all times.
Induced siphonage - the process whereby a reduction in the surface level

of the trap-seal of an idle fixture is caused by the discharge of other
fixtures on the system, such discharge resulting in transient local pres-
sure fluctuations that siphon, or otherwise remove, water from the idle
trap.
Reduced size venting (RSV) - a specially designed vent system (or the
procedure for such design) that contains dry vents smaller in size than
allowed by the applicable plumbing code for standard venting.
Soil stack - a stack intended to convey sewage containing fecal matter.
Stack - general term for the vertical main of the soil, waste, or vent
piping system.
Stack vent - a stack vent is the extension of a soil or waste stack above
the highest connection of a horizontal drain to the stack.
Trap - a fitting or device placed below a fixture outlet and constructed

so as to provide a water seal for protection against the emission of sewer
gases, without significantly retarding the flow of water through it.
Trap-seal - the vertical distance between the trap weir and the dip of the
trap.
Trap-seal reduction - same as dH.
Trap-seal retention - the amount of trap-seal retained following the

discharge of fixture(s) into the system.
Trap weir (crown weir) - the lowest point in the vertical cross section of
the horizontal waterway at the exit of the trap.
Vent - a pipe installed to provide a flow of air to or from a drainage

system or element thereof so as to provide protection of trap-seals from
siphonage and back pressure.
Vent header - a generally horizontal vent that joins together two or more
stack vents and/or vent stacks, and terminates outside the building in the
atmosphere.
Vent stack - a vertical vent pipe extending through two or more stories,
installed to provide circulation of air between elements of the DWV
system. Usually, the vent stack is the vertical main of the vent system,
to which branch vents are connected.
xiii
Vent terminal - that portion of the vent piping extended outside the
building and open to the atmosphere.
Waste - liquid waste not including fecal matter.
Waste stack - a stack that conveys only waste.
xiv
.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF PROGRAM
The principal objective of the research program described herein was to

evaluate field performance of reduced-size vents (RSV). Laboratory-based
vent-sizing criteria were applied to the modification of selected standard
drain-waste-vent (DWV) designs and measurements made to determine the field
hydraulic and pneumatic performance of the test units. In addition, the broad
overall scope of the program undertaken called for the acquisition of post-
occupancy data on the magnitude and time distribution of hot and cold water by
fixture and of energy consumption by the water heater. Samples of the type of
data obtained in the post-occupancy study are presented in appendix B.
Laboratory-based criteria [1] were applied to resize the dry vents of two
living units each of three different standard DWV plans (a total of six units).
Sensors, transmission wiring, and a data acquisition system were installed for
the primary purpose of automatically monitoring, subsequent to occupancy:
(1) the hydraulic and pneumatic performance of the DWV system, (2) distribution
of fixture operations, (3) water consumption, and (4) energy used by the water
heaters
Preoccupancy field tests were made in three of the six units, in which trap-
seal reductions for idle traps and pneumatic pressure changes in vents were
measured when selected plumbing fixtures were discharged manually. Figure 1
is an aerial view of the test houses.
This report includes recommended design procedures, installation guidelines

and preoccupancy field test performance data for RSV systems.
1 . 2 BACKGROUND
Before the present study was initiated several reports describing laboratory
investigations of reduced-size venting had been issued [1, 2, 3, 4], and one
field study had been reported [5]. Reduced-size venting was used in one single
family, one-story DWV design used in HUD's Operation Breakthrough Program [6]
apparently with satisfactory results. Those investigations showed the adequacy
of hydraulic and pneumatic performance of selected one- and two-story DWV sys-
tems with reduced-size vents under the conditions described. The principal
explanations offered for the satisfactory performance of those systems not
conforming to traditional vent sizing requirements were:
(a) Traditional sizing of vent stacks and stack vents is based on

maximum air flow rates associated with conditions in a tall
building [7], where both the waste loading rates and the
accompanying air flow rates might be expected to be much
greater than occur in a one- or two-story building. Laboratory
data confirmed this, showing relatively low air demands in one-
and two-story systems.
1
(b) Scientific criteria for the traditional sizing of individual and
common fixture vents and for branch vents could not be identified;
analysis of installation practices and laboratory measurements indi-
cated such vents, at least in one- and two-story systems are capable
of carrying much greater air flow rates that normally occur in service
when sized by plumbing code requirements.
(c) Traditional vent sizing was developed with an awareness of the

tendency of ferrous pipes to acquire, under some conditions,
surface corrosion deposits which could, over a period of time,
reduce the effective diameter of the pipe. But if modern piping
materials not subject to corrosion are used, this effect should
be negligible.
As a result of these findings suggesting potential for the demonstration of

of RSV as a viable type of venting, the U.S. Air Force and the Tri Services,
together with NBS , funded the field study described in this report. The
demonstration was intended to provide a basis for possible later general
application of RSV, with economic benefits, in the Tri Services family housing
construction programs. The highly instrumented homes were to provide field
data on water use and distribution of fixture operations needed for updating
the widely used Hunter method for sizing water supply piping. It was also
intended to provide a practical, generalized sizing procedure for use by
plumbing code organizations that may consider the inclusion of RSV criteria in
their codes.
Economic analyses of the impact of reduced-size venting [8] concluded that

under some conditions and methods of cost estimating, significant savings can
be anticipated from the installation of RSV. In these analyses, potential
savings in single family, one- and two-story residential installations ranged
from $24 to $151 per dwelling unit (1975 dollars). Cost reductions from RSV
are affected primarily by: (1) the specifics of the DWV system design including
pipe sizes, configuration, complexity, fixture locations, etc., (2) types and
availability of necessary piping materials, and (3) the nature of cost esti-
mating procedures used and other business practices of the plumbing contractor.
These are essentially the principal factors that generally affect the cost of
plumbing. The studies showed that, while the unit savings from the lower
materials costs of smaller pipes and fittings may be relatively small, instal-
lation labor, overhead, and profit generally amplify this margin so that, for
example, a one dollar saving on the material cost of a length of pipe may
result in much more than a one dollar saving in the completed installation.
1.3 PERFORMANCE CONCEPTS AND GENERAL APPROACH
Performance concepts for plumbing in general, and sanitary DWV systems in

particular, have been treated at length in previous studies [9, 10, 11, 12] so
the criteria and requirements will not be discussed here in detail. Let it
suffice to state that the performance criteria of particular interest in this
study were: (a) trap-seal retention in idle traps subjected to suction, and
(b) absence of emissions of water or suds through idle trap-seals subjected to
back pressure. Attention was also given to the principal phenomenon which
2
might produce the results measured by criteria (a) and (b): the fluctuating
suction or back pressure within the vent system pipe network itself.
In the preoccupancy tests, the general approach was to impose test loads
considered somewhat more severe than would be expected in normal service, and
to measure trap-seal reduction (the complement of trap-seal retention) and
pressure fluctuations in the vents. At the same time, test personnel listened
for noises indicating air flow through idle trap-seals which could indicate
excessive levels of back pressure or suction.
3
Figure 1 . Aerial view of test houses
4
2. SIZING OF VENTS
2.1 SIZING CRITERIA
2.1.1 Traditional Criteria
The traditional code requirements for sizing of stack vents and vent stacks
(main vents) are based on data from laboratory studies with multistory test
systems, applied conservatively [7, 13, 14]. The traditional criteria for
sizing individual, common and branch vents are more or less "rule-of-thumb,"
based on experience with ferrous vent piping materials (commonly used when these
rules were being formulated), which, under some conditions, can be subject to
gradual diameter reduction and increased surface roughness as a result of
corrosion. Also, it is recognized that intermittent discharge of a fixture
may, under some conditions, deposit a layer of particulate matter inside the
lower portion of a vent, further contributing to gradual closing of the vent
over a period of time, regardless of the piping material used.
A review of this information indicated that in many systems dry vents sized
by traditional criteria are considerably larger than would be required to
accomodate the air flow with an acceptable pressure drop. The review suggested
that dry vent size reduction would be appropriate in low-rise systems, partic-
ular one- and two-story residences, and that such reduced-size venting should
be constructed of corrosion-resistant piping.
2.1.2 Criteria for RSV
The essential features of the RSV criteria applied in this study were presented
in an earlier publication [1]. The criteria used were technically similar to
those presently recommended in appendix C using an updated format.
In applying the criteria, the principal parameters to be considered are:

(1) "free-fall" distance for water discharge, (2) fixture unit load values(s)
of fixture(s) served by a particular vent, and (3) type or function of vent,
e.g., individual vent, branch vent, vent stack, etc. In addition, certain
limitations are critical, e.g., no size reductions are permitted wherever
wastewater might reasonably be expected to rise into the vent due to fouling
or blockage of a drain, and no reductions of wet vent or drainage piping sizes
are permitted below code minimums. See appendix C for further details.
2.2 APPLICATION OF RSV CRITERIA TO THREE DWV DESIGNS
The first step in sizing the vents for the study was to apply the RSV criteria
to the DWV schematics furnished by the sponsor prior to the beginning of con-
struction. Figures 2 through 4 are floor plans showing the plumbing layouts
taken from the original design drawings. Figures 5 through 8 are soil, waste,
and vent piping riser diagrams showing vent sizes as originally specified by
the Air Force and as initially recommended by NBS on the basis of the RSV cri-
teria [1]. Appendix C presents the criteria and a recommended procedure for
applying them.
5
The second step was to make revisions to the initially recommended RSV designs
to provide consistency with modifications to the installations due to onsite
contractor practices or other alterations dictated by field conditions differing
from the assumptions made in producing the initial schematics (see 3.1). The
"as-built" schematics are shown in figures 9 through 11.
6
FLOOR
SECOND
U ]f It u
WH
Figure 2. Floor plan for D-house (as designed)
7
FLOOR
SECOND
o cc
sZ
n co
IThm
co
6
4
SERVICE—
cw
Figure 3. Floor plan for E-house (as designed)
8
SERVICE
1'CW
WH
o V
o \
Figure 4. Floor plan for F-house (as designed)
9
^-3'V.T.R.
Figure 5. Original design, D-house soil, waste, and vent piping, showing
vent size reductions obtainable from RSV criteria
10
CRITERIA
RSV
BY
)
3/4
Figure 6. Original design, E-house soil, waste, and vent piping, showing
11
VTR
<
GC
UJ
H
GC
Hi ^
O CO
O GC
> >-
CO CQ
Figure 7. Original design, F—house soil, waste, and vent piping, showing
12
VTR
CRITERIA
LU
O
o RSV
o
> BY
CD
)
3/4
Figure 8. Modified original design, F-house soil, waste, and vent piping,
showing manifolding of vent terminals and vent size reductions
obtainable from RSV criteria
13
Figure 9. As—built design, D~house soil, waste, and vent piping, showing vent
sizes obtained from RSV criteria
14
Figure 10. As-built design, E-house soil, waste, and vent piping, showing
vent sizes obtained from RSV criteria
15
Figure 11. As-built design, F-house soil, waste, and vent piping, showing vent
sizes obtained from RSV criteria
16
3. INSTALLATION AND TESTING OF RSV SYSTEMS IN THE FIELD
3.1 ORGANIZATION AND SEQUENCE OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
At the outset it was necessary to consider the nature and sequence of project
activities in relation to the construction and occupancy schedules. Some
activities would have to be planned and/or completed before groundbreaking,
others during construction, and still others after completion of construction
but before occupancy of the test housing units. Table 1 shows the guide used
as an aid to the management and monitoring of these activities.
3.2 INSTALLATION OF INSTRUMENTATION AND REDUCED SIZE VENTS
Figure 1 shows the locations of the test units in a family housing development
at Andrews Air Force Base. During the early construction phase, underground
cable was laid connecting each test unit with the DAS central control unit
placed in a closet in the D/a module. In this terminology, e.g.. D/a, the
capital letter refers to the house type and the lower case letter refers to a
particular module as designated in the architectural drawings (see figure 1).
Within each of the test dwelling units, wires were run within the walls between
the measurement points (primary sensors) and a centrally located closet selected
for housing the "satellite” DAS equipment cabinet. The DAS central unit
(recorder and printer), placed in the equipment closet of the D/a module, is
shown in figure 12.
Pressure taps were provided at selected points in the venting systems during
the installation of the DWV systems, and 3/8 in. O.D. diameter copper tubing
was run within the walls and floor-ceiling cavities to the equipment closet in
each test module. These tubes were continuously graded downward from the
highest point to assure moisture drainage. Each equipment cabinet contained,
among other things, three magnetically coupled differential pressure gages
connected to the tubing from the pressure taps.
Flow switches were installed in the individual hot and cold water supply lines
of lavatories, tubs and/or showers, kitchen sink, clothes washer, and in the
cold water supply to the water closets. Water meters were Installed in the
water service pipe and in the cold water branch to the hot water heater of each
instrumented housing unit.
The monitoring traps designed for automatically detecting trap-seal reductions

were installed for the bath tubs, clothes washers, and shower stalls in the
test units at appropriate times before drywall installation. Monitoring traps
for the lavoratories and kitchen sinks were installed after completion of the
drywall, and access panels to the clothes washer traps and flow switches were
also provided after completion of the drywall installation.
Connections were made to telephone transmission lines from the data acquisition
system on the housing site. The telephone lines could be used to carry data
directly to the NBS site in Gaithersburg, an air distance of approximatly
47 km (29 miles).
17
At the appropriate time during the installation of the rough piping, the
reduced-size vents were installed. Ideally, that would have been done simply
in accordance with the original design schematics as modified for RSV (see
figures 5 through 8). However, some modifications in the planned DWV configu-
rations and sizes were necessitated because of building site conditions, and
because of field changes in the drainage piping systems introduced by the
plumbing contractor, (not an unusual situation). Before preoccupancy testing
was initiated, it was established that the as-built drainage (wet) systems
complied with the appropriate model plumbing code. In making the necessary
design revisions for the reduced-size vents of the as-installed, field test
systems, the sizing criteria were the same as previously applied for the first
modifications to the original design drawings. The "as-built" designs are
shown in figures 9 through 11.
3.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
3.3.1 Instrumentation
The project plan called for three types of data: (1) DWV system performance,
(2) water usage (distribution of fixture operations and volume of water used,
by time and fixture), and (3) energy usage (for each water heater). The
instrumentation developed for these measurements is described briefly in
table 2 and figures 12 and 13. See also appendix B.
The automated instrumentation designed for collection of post-occupancy DWV

system data, as well as other temporary installed instrumentation, was utili-
zed during the preoccupancy tests. This provided for an opportunity for veri-
fication of the operational readiness of the automated system. Comparisons of
the trap-seal levels directly measured from piezometers or portable depth-
detector probes were made with those measured by means of the data acquisition
system receiving the electrical signals from instrumented traps. Three
magnetically-coupled differential pressure gauges in each of three test modules
were utilized during the preoccupancy tests to observe visually the peak vent
pressure excursions in selected tests for comparison with the corresponding
values recorded in the automated operation mode. The gauges were equipped to
automatically measure cumulative elapsed time over which vent pressure fluctua-
tions fell outside a preselected pressure range; e.g. , + 25 mm WG (see
figure 13).
Water seal depth changes in some of the bathtub or shower traps were measured
in the preoccupancy tests by means of the portable depth-detector probe (figure
12); the traps were also instrumented for post-occupancy automatic data acqui-
sition. Floor drain traps, however, were not instrumented for post-occupancy
automatic data collection because only relatively mild changes in water level
in the traps were expected during normal loading. This was confirmed in the
preoccupancy tests using the portable probe.
The flow switches on the hot and cold water supply lines to the fixtures
together with the two water meters (one in the house service pipe and the other
in the supply pipe to the water heater) provided a means of monitoring the time
distribution of water usage by fixture and the cumulative consumption of water.
18
It was planned that in the post-occupancy tests the data from the flow switches
and the traps would be processed to identify which fixture(s) were operated to
produce a water flow registered by the water meter(s), and to provide data on
the time distribution of the fixture operations.
In the preoccupancy tests, piezometers were utilized to read the water levels
in some of the instrumented traps. Peak vent pressures were observed visually
on the magnetically-coupled gauges for selected tests (see figure 13) while the
data acquisition system was automatically recording the cumulative time outside
the range + 0.25 kPa. Locations of pressure measurement taps are shown
schematically in figures 9 through 11.
3.3.2 Test Procedures: Preoccupancy Tests
The test plan covered four areas: organization of project activities; the
discharge characteristics of the fixtures; a selection of test conditions
(including specific test loads); and definitive test procedures.
Each of the fixtures in each of the houses was given an abbreviated

identification code (symbol) that would apply in all the houses. (See table
3).
Water depths for the waste fixtures (fixtures other than water closets) were
established, a selection of loading patterns was made, certain conditions of
test were selected, and the scope of measurements decided. Tables 4 through 6
and the following discussion describe these areas in greater detail.
The selection of hydraulic test loads for DWV system evaluation has not been
standardized. But preliminary analysis of the piping schematics showed that
specific hydraulic loads should be imposed to test the adequacy of particular
types of vents, and of the vent system as a whole. For example, appropriate
individual fixture discharges would test the fixture vents; simultaneous
discharge of two or more fixtures served by a particular branch vent would test
the branch vent; and generally three or more fixtures discharged simultaneously
would test the main vents and overall venting system. Some tests would be
necessary to evaluate the effect of detergents as used in the clothes washer
and the kitchen sink.
A review was made of several earlier reports on DWV testing. The load selection
guide, shown as table 5, for selecting test loads in the RSV preoccupancy field
study was based on [15] for single-branch interval portions of plumbing systems
and on other general requirements for hydraulic loading. The loads actually used
were considered equal, or greater, in effect than those indicated by table 5.
The effects of the loads used are believed to have been at least as severe as
might have been expected from service loadings imposed by building occupants.
Table 5 indicates the number of fixtures to be discharged. Judgment is required

to select which fixtures should be discharged when several are served by the
system or component being tested. Experience in performance evaluation of DWV
systems has shown that, generally, it is wise to choose two or three different
19
combinations so as to produce effects more or less representative of service
conditions.
In any bathroom group of three fixtures, it is reasonable to discharge two

fixtures and observe the effect on the third or idle fixture. In any back-to-
back bathroom arrangement, it is logical to test each group separately (as
immediately above), and also to discharge two fixtures in one bathroom and
observe the effect on the fixtures in the opposite bathroom or to discharge two
in one room and one in the other, observing any effects in either room. A
loading comprising two fixtures in each room would represent a very unusual
concentration of simultaneous operation and is precluded by table 5.
When the fixtures are distributed on two or three different levels, table 5 may
be used to aid in selecting test loads, using an approach similar to that given
above for back-to-back bathrooms on the same level. If some but not all of the
discharging fixtures are on the lowest level, measurable back pressure may be
produced at this elevation.
A "test" was defined to consist of four successive runs under conditions as

identical as possible. Detergent, used in some of the tests, was introduced
on the first and third runs of a test (clean water used on runs two and four).
Four successive runs with detergent additives were not considered a realistic
test cycle. Readily available testing materials were used: 1-1/4 c. TIDE
laundry detergent in the clothes washer according to the manufacturer's direc-
tions; for the kitchen sink, 1/4 c. PAIMOLIVE detergent (sink bowls filled to
15 cm level as established in the fixture calibration determination). (The
designation c. is used for "cup" and products were selected due to availability.)
After a run was initiated, the peak readings on one or two selected pressure
gauges were observed visually. This information was correlated, where applicable,
with the elapsed time in seconds outside the range of + 0.25 kPa clocked by the
DAS (see figure 13).
Trap-seal elevations were read manually on the piezometers after each run. In
almost all cases, the trap monitor voltage values from the DAS were recorded
after each run (as a convenient means of comparing the changes in water level in
the traps as indicated by the DAS against level changes observed on the trap
piezometers). The traps were not filled between runs, so the value recorded by
the DAS after the fourth run corresponded to the cumulative trap-seal reduction
determined visually from the piezometer, within the limits of resolution of the
depth measurement electrode pins in the traps.
In the D and F houses, tests were first run with the vent terminal open, and
then with it taped shut, in accordance with the plan indicated in table 6. If
the first run produced a trap-seal reduction of more than 25 mm with the ter-
minal closed, the fixtures were refilled after each run. The four values of
trap-seal reduction obtained in this way yielded an average "single-run" dH, as
depicted in figure 14.
In all six of the houses, gate valves were installed in the vent lines of the
floor drain (F6 figures 9, 10, and 11). These were shut before the preoccupancy
20
tests. In the original test plan (see table 6), tests were to be made with the
floor drain vent valve both closed and open. Tests were first run with the
valve closed. Because of the small floor drain trap-seal reductions observed,
the series was not repeated with the valve open. These valves remained closed
after occupancy.
The piezometers used for the preoccupancy tests were removed before occupancy
and the installed DAS system was to monitor the performance.
3.4 DATA SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The data tabulations presented are from the records prepared by visual/manual
readings. The pre-occupancy testing provided opportunity for check-out of
the DAS instruments and automated data compilations. The cumulative times
for pressure excursions in the over range periods were obtained from the DAS.
The precision of the visual/manual instrument readings were less than the
resolution capability of the automated systems; general agreement was found
between the sets of data compared.
3.4.1 Discharge Characteristics of Fixtures
The results of the fixture calibrations are given in tables 7 and 8. For the
waste fixtures, the average values were as follows:
Discharge Duration Volume Discharge Discharge Rate

Fixture Type Seconds Liters (gal) Liters/second (gpm)
Lavatory 17.0 6.56 (1.73) 0.39 (6.1)

Bathtub 166.2 82.9 (21.9 ) .50 (7.9)
Kitchen Sink 29.4 37.7 (10.0 ) 1.28 (20.3)
Clothes washer 52.6 56.0 (14.8 ) 1.06 (16.9)
For the water closets in the D/a unit (see table 8), the average water
consumption per flush was 14.7 liters (3.9 gal).
3.4.2 Trap-Seal Reduction and Vent Pressure with Vent Terminal Open
The principal and typical results from the tests with the vent terminal open
are summarized in tables 9 and 10. The detailed data are given in appendix A.
In a few instances an apparent rise in temperature level appeared and are noted
by the + readings (e.g., tables A. 1.1, A. 2. 2, A. 2. 3). Such readings may occur
as a result of: positive pressures or fluctuating miniscus and inadequate time
for the system to stabilize prior to the piezometer reading; capability to rend
the miniscus wetting the wall within a limit of 1 mm or a depth probe to
2.5 mm limit (as noted in table 2); combinations of capillary effects with
dirt in the tubing introducing a small error.
21
Results of all the tests with the vent terminal open show that the
reduced-size vents provided satisfactory performance in terms of trap-seal
retention and vent pressure.
The greatest trap-seal reduction in the D house was 10 mm, in the E house 7 mm,
and in the F house 5 mm (tables 9 and A. 1.1). The greatest vent suction was
40 mm WG (E house) and the greatest vent back pressure was 20 mm WG (F house).
See table 10 and section A.l.
The greatest trap-seal reductions in the E house, 7 mm, occurred for discharges
of W1 + W2 + W3 + C5, and for W1 + W2 + LI. Of special interest in the E house
was the shared (party wall) vent serving the first floor half baths (water
closets and lavatories). For a discharge of both these water closets and one
of the lavatories, the greatest seal reduction in the trap of the idle lavatory
was only 2 mm. See table A. 1.1(B).
For the RSV installation in the F house, the largest trap-seal reduction, 5 mm,
occurred for discharges of W1 + W2 + L; W1 + W2 + Tl; and W1 + W2 + K4. See
table A. 1.1(C).
For all tests with the vent terminal open, the largest trap-seal reduction was
10 mm, in a P-trap in the D/a unit (see table A. 1.1). It it is assumed that
the seal depth of the full-trap is 50 mm, then the trap-seal retention is given
by:
P-trap-seal rentention = 100 - (100 All) = 100 - 100( 10 mm ) = gQ

H 50 mm percent
This means that P-trap-seal retention was at least 80 percent after four runs
(without filling of traps between runs).
A 10 mm reduction in the level of the water closet trap yielded a greater

trap-seal retention percentage because the full trap-seal depth of the
water closet was 75 mm:
WC-trap-seal rentention = 100 - (100 AH) = 100 - (100 JALiEB.) = 87

H 75 mm percent
Generally, the idle P-traps exhibited greater trap-seal reductions than the
W.C. traps. This has also been observed in other laboratory studies where idle
P-traps were subjected to transient, fluctuating suction. Probably a major
factor in this phenomenon is the relatively larger mass and inertia of the W.C.
trap, which minimizes the effect of transient pressure fluctuations such as
those associated with suction.
However, in studies of high-rise systems subject to back pressure, failures of

W.C. traps have been observed near the bottom (lower floors) of the system due
to blowback while no failures of nearby P-traps occurred. Analysis of the
geometry of the respective trap types provides a plausible explanation: with
back pressure, the water head resisting air passage (blowback) is least for
22
the W.C. case because the trap seal volume on the room side is much greater than
the volume on the sewer side of the seal.
Limited measurements relating to vent pressure fluctuations were made. The DAS
could automatically record the cumulative time that the pressure was outside
the preselected range of + 0.25 kPa, the generally accepted design range for
DWV systems. The pressure values observed were within these limits in idle
trap vents for nearly all of the tests with the vent terminal open.
Because the vent pressure excursion peaks on the magnetically-coupled

differential pressure gauges were read manually, it is estimated that the
maximum error could be in excess of 0.02 kPa (2 percent of full-scale of
manufacturer's claimed accuracy). See table 2.
Studies [1,3,10] of the relationship of peak suction in the vent and the
associated trap-seal reduction under normal conditions showed that a 25 mm
cumulative trap-seal reduction occurred only when the peak transient suction in
the vent was on the order of -0.40 kPa. A similar result was found in the pre-
occupancy field test, based on the pressure gauge peak readings observed visu-
ally and the corresponding trap-seal reductions actually measured with the vent
terminal open.
3.4.3 Trap-Seal Reduction and Vent Pressure with Vent Terminal Closed
Data from load tests with vent terminal closed, some of which produced trap-
seal reductions near failure (»25 mm), presented an additional opportunity
to examine, in this critical area of unusually severe conditions, the
relationship between the traditional + 25 mm pressure criterion and the more
meaningful criterion: trap-seal reduction not exceeding 25 mm together with
the absence of adverse back pressure effects. These data are also presented in
detail in appendix A.
The data support the earlier laboratory findings that a repetitive peak suction
of 38 mm (1 1/2 in WG) is roughly comparable to a cumulative P-trap seal reduc-
tion of 25 mm (1 in WG). Also, the trap-seal failures or near-failures observed
in some instances, with closed vent terminals and heavy hydraulic loads, indi-
cate the general desirability of keeping the vent terminals open, although this
may not be essential for every system and is dependent on system configuration
and location of fixtures.
23
Table 1. Organization and Sequence of Activities Relating to PreoCcupancy
Hydraulic Tests
I. BEFORE GROUNDBREAKING
1. Select plumbing systems to be studied and size the reduced-size vents

using design drawings submitted by sponsor.
2. Select sensors and decide scope of measurements within each test unit;
design data collection system for post-occupancy measurements; and order
equipment.
II. DURING EARLY STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION (BEFORE DRYWALL)
3. Underground cable connections to be made between units and building sewer

pressure tap to be installed.
4. Assemble instrumentation and make the appropriate modifications to

"off-shelf" items.
5. Install reduced-size vents and vent pressure taps as appropriate for

as-built wet system.
6. Arrange inspection of wet system for code compliance.
7. Verify RSV sizes taking into account wet-piping field changes, and make
modifications as necessary to satisfy (6).
8. Install wiring (for individual sensors) within walls, install "hidden"

traps (laundry, bathtub, shower); and install "hidden" flow switches
(laundry, bathtub, shower). Install tubing between equipment closets and
pressure taps in the vent system.
III. DURING LATER STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION (AFTER DRYWALL )
9. Install "external" traps (lavatories, kitchen sink).
10. Install DAS, connect sensor wires to transmission wires, and connect
pressure tubes to pressure gauges.
11. Check all instruments and the Data Acquisition System for operational
readiness.
IV. AFTER COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION (BEFORE OCCUPANCY)
12. Determine fixture discharge characteristics, install piezometers and

assemble portable probes for preoccupancy measurements of trap-seal
elevation.
13. Conduct preoccupancy tests according to test plan. Subsequently remove

piezometers and portable test instrumentation in preparation for occupancy
of the housing units.
24
Table 2. Characteristics of Instruments and Purposes for Which Used
Range or Resolution
Instrument Size of Utilization of System
Instrument
In Preoccupancy Tests
Rulers /Piezometers 30 cm To measure depth of water 1 mm

in fixtures and in traps
Stopwatch 30 min To measure duration of 0.1 s

discharge
Graduated 100, 500 ml To measure volume of

cylinders discharge of fixtures and
to calibrate larger con-
tainers (2 and 4 liter
beakers, and 8 liter
bucket used for filling
fixtures)
Depth probe 1 in To measure trap-seal 0.1 in

reductions (2 .5 mm)
In Pre- and Post-Occupancy Tests
100-channel DAS 100 channels To collect post-occupancy "single scan"

(25 channels data; also to record pres- for millivolt
per unit) 3 sure overrange duration and changes every
trap-seal reduction in pre- 5 seconds
occupancy tests
Instrumented traps + 2 cm to To detect water depth in 5 mm

and trap printed - 7 cm** trap
circuit cards
Magnetically 10 cm of To measure time outside pre- 0.5 cmc
coupled water selected pressure range
differential
pressure gauges
Printed circuit To measure time 0.1 s
timer cards
In Post-Occupancy Tests
Water meters 100,000 gal To measure volume of water 1/350 gal d

used (0.011 liter)
Volume counter — To register water used 0.1 gal d

card (0.38 liter)
Magnetic flow 10 cm of To detect occurrence of 1 sd

switches water water flow in fixture
supply pipes
a Four housing units could be monitored concurrently by the DAS by means of

switches but all six units were instrumented.
b Zero level = water surface level of full trap-seal.
c This was read visually during manual tests and it is estimated that the
readings made this way would be accurate to within 0.5 cm water gauge.
This is 2-1/2 times the manufacturer's claimed accuracy.
d For a flow duration greater than 5 s. Water meter resolution 1/350 gal; with
counter card 0.1 gal.
25
Table 3. Symbols for Fixtures
Symbol Fixture Location
W1 Water closet Master bathroom

LI Lavatory Master bathroom
T1 Bathtub Master bathroom
Sl a Shower stall Master bathroom
W2 Water closet Common (second) bathroom

L2 Lavatory Common (second) bathroom
T2 Bathtub Common (second) bathroom
K4 Kitchen sink Kitchen, laundry, utility

C5 b Clothes washer Kitchen, laundry, utility
F6 Floor drain Kitchen, laundry, utility
a The D house had a shower stall in the master bathroom instead of a bathtub.
b A clothes washer was not furnished with these units, although laundry piping
was installed in the units. A clothes washer used in earlier NBS laboratory
tests was taken to each house in turn for the preoccupancy tests.
26
Table 4. Water Level in Waste Fixtures for Discharge Rate Measurements
Fixture Type Initial Water Level when Discharge Initiated
Lavatory Filled to overflow weir
Bathtub Filled to 15 cm depth, measured at stopper rim

Kitchen sink Filled to 15 cm depth, measured at stopper rim
Clothes washer Filled to level at which water is automatically shut

off and agitation begins - factory preset
27
Table 5. Guide for Selecting Test Loads for Residential Plumbing Systems
Number of Fixtures
Served by System
or Component Being Maximum Reasonable Number of Concurrently
Tested Operating Fixtures to Comprise Test Load
1 1
2-5 2*
6-12 3
13-32 4
For a two fixture system or component, also discharge each fixture individually.
28
Table 6. Plan for Testing Sequence and Certain Test Conditions in Preoccupancy
Hydraulic Tests
Sequence Conditions of Test
Status of Use of
Gate Valve Status of Detergent
in Floor Vent Terminal as an
Drain Vent Additive
1 Closed Open In some tests
2a Open Open In some tests
3 Closed Closed In some tests
a In conducting the tests, step 2 was omitted because satisfactory performance

was attained in step 1 with the floor drain vents closed. These vents
remained closed during both preoccupancy and post-occupancy testing.
29
1 s
Table 7. Waste Fixture Discharge Characteristics Determined from Field

Calibrations of Fixtures In Place
Fixture Volume Duration Rate Volume Duration Rate

Symbol Liters s Liters/ Liters s Liters/s
D/a Unit^ D/b Unit
LI 6.7 17.2 0.39 6.5 17.7 0.36
L2 6.7 16.6 0.39 6.5 17.2 0.38
L3 6.9 21.9 0.31 6.5 16.4 0.39
T1 83.3 170.2 0.49 86.9 176.8 0.40
K4 39.2 31.5 1.24 38.1 28.4 1.34
E/e Unit E/f Unit
LI 6.4 14.6 0.44 6.6 17.6 0.38
L2 6.4 17.4 0.37 6.6 20.5 0.32
L3 6.6 16.8 0.39 6.7 15.7 0.42
T1 84.8 205.8 0.41 82.2 184.3 0.45
T2 75.8 195.6 0.39 82.8 152.5 0.54
F/a Unit F/b Unit
LI 6.4 14.2 0.45 6.6 15.6 0.42
L2 6.5 17.0 0.38 6.4 15.2 0.42
T1 83.8 152.6 0.55 82.8 121.7 0.68
T2 82.8 133.5 0.62 83.8 168.6 0.50
K4 36.4 28.6 1.28 37.0 29.3 1.26
All Units Tested
C5 56.0 52.6 1.06
* See table 3 for fixture symbol identification

^ Code: Capital letter indicates house type, lower case letter the module;
e.g., D house, a module = D/a unit.
30
Table 8. Water Closet Water Consumption Measured in D/a Unit
Water Consumption for One Flush*

Run W1 W2 W3
liters (gal) Liters (gal) Liters (gal)
1 14.8 (3.9) 14.8 (3.9) 15.1 (4.0)
2 14.0 (3.7) 15.5 (4.1) 13.6 (3.6)
3 14.8 (3.9) 15.9 (4.2) 13.2 (3.5)
4 15.1 (4.0) 15.5 (4.1) 13.6 (3.6)
AVG. 14.7 (3.9) 15.4 (4.1) 13.9 (3.7)
* Values obtained from water meter readings
31
Table 9. Summary of Findings on Trap-Seal Reductions D, E, and F Houses with
Vent Terminals Open
A. Trap-seal reductions after four runs for a discharge of W1 + W2 + C5 in

the D/a unit
Test No. Lavatories and Bathtub Kitchen and Floor Design

LI L2 L3 TI T2 K4 F6
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
1 8 5 6 5 10 5 5
2 10 4 7 5 5 6 2.5
3* 7 3 6 5 10 4 5
4* 7 3 4 5 7.5 5 5
AVG 8 4 6 5 8 5 4
* Detergent in C5 runs 1 and 3.
B. Trap-seal reduction after four runs for two different leads in the E/e
unit
Lavatories Bathtubs Kitchen and Utility

LI L2 L3 Tl T2 K4 F6
Discharge of W1 + W2 + W3 + C5
5 2 4 0 2.5 7 0
Discharge of W1 + W2 + W3
3 2 3 2 2.5 6 2
C. Trap-seal reduction after four runs for a discharge of W1 + W2 + K4b + C5

in the F/b unit
Test No. Lavatories Bathtubs Kitchen

LI L2 Tl T2 K4a
mm mm mm mm mm
1 i 5 2.5 2.5 3
2 0 5 2.5 2.5 2
AVG. 1 5 2.5 2.5 3
* See table A. 1.1 for additional data.
32
)
Table 10. Summary of Findings on Vent Pressures in D, E, and F Houses

with Vent Terminals Open 1
Pressure Tap
Fixtures Discharged 1 Location 2 and Peak Pressure
Vent Size Excursions
D/a Unit Tests
W1 + W2 + W3 + W5 S1U/2") -2 cm W.G.
(199 Pa)
+1/2 cm W.G.
W1 + W2 + W3 + W5 W3(3/4" -1.5 cm W.G.
(149 Pa)
+1 cm W.G.
(96 Pa)
E/e Unit Tests
Wl + W2 + W3 K4( 1/2") -2 cm W.G.
(199 Pa)
+0
W3(e) + W3(f) + L3(f) L3(e,f) -1/2 cm W.G.
and (50 Pa)
W3 (e,f
(1 1/4") +0
F/b Unit Tests
W1 + W2 + L2 LI (3/4") -1 cm W.G.
(100 Pa)
K4(a) + K4(b) K4(a,b) -3 cm W.G.
(1") (299 Pa)
+0
W1 + W2 + K4(b) C5 (1/2") -1 cm W.G.
(100 Pa.)
+2 cm W.G.
(199 Pa)
1
See section A.l for additional data.
2 Lower case letters in parenthesis indicate the applicable modules where party
wall DWV piping existed.
33
m
Portable Trap seal Instrumented Trap and Fixture

Level Detector Supply Pipe Flow Switches
Figure 12. Instrumentation and data acquisition system
34
PRESSURE
MAGNETICALLY-COUPLED
PRESSURE SWITCH-GAGE
Figure 13. Method for measurement of cumulative time outside preset

pressure range
35
CUMULATIVE dH
(Reading after final run)
tsU
Run 1 Run 2
^ ^
Run 3 Run 4
*Hh
Trap filled only before first run
Figure 14. Definition of trap-seal reductions for testing purposes
36
4. CONCLUSIONS
4.1 ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE OF THE RSV SYSTEMS AT ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE AND
ADEQUACY OF THE RSV CRITERIA
From the study it is concluded that:
1. The data show the adequacy of performance of properly designed and installed
RSV systems for one- and two-story residential designs connected to a
standard drainage system, conforming to the criteria presented in
appendix C.
2. The RSV criteria can be successfully applied to vent design modification

from standard DWV plans for one- and two-story systems conforming to a
recognized model code. The formulation of proposed code changes and/or
design/installation practices could be based upon the approach defined
and discussed in this report.
3. The data support the elimination of requirements for floor drain vents in
one- and two-story residential housing designs at typical building sites.
Some current codes recognize that such vents may be omitted under specified
conditions.
4.2 COST CONSIDERATIONS
Published results from studies on the economics of RSV are limited [8]. A
review of such information available to the investigation described herein
indicated potential savings ranging up to about $150 per dwelling unit,
expressed in 1975 dollars. In many situations, RSV does in fact offer signi-
ficant potential for savings. The actual extent of savings in a given situa-
tion depends on a number of factors.
4.3 RESIDUAL ISSUES AND CODE ACCEPTANCE
4.3.1 Residual Issues
Among lingering issues are: (a) what is the impact of frost closure of vent
terminals, and (b) are reduced-size dry vents really subject to a signifi-
cantly greater risk of blockage than are standard size vents? If so, can
opening the vents be satisfactorily accomplished through simple maintenance
procedures?
On the frost closure issue, the present recommendation is to conform to local

code requirements in minimum size of vent terminals where frost closure is
recognized as a problem with standard DWV systems. However, in the light of
the results of one study of frost closure [16] it seems this would be a signi-
ficant problem only in areas with extended periods of freezing temperatures
(below 0°F (-18°C)). Even in these areas the use of materials with low therr. 1 1
conductivity, insulating shields, electrical heating or shortened extension

above the roof line could minimize closure. A "frost closure map" of the
United States based on available weather data and a model representative of
37
heat transfer in roof vents is needed as a guide for the design of roof vents
in very cold regions. Probably only a very small proportion of the U.S. would
require special precautions.
No frost closure or other types of blockage of the reduced-size vents at

Andrews Air Force Base have been observed by the investigators or reported by
the Air Force since the installations were completed more than seven years ago.
While neither of the issues appears to be highly critical if the recommended

design procedures are followed, the widespread acceptance and implementation of
RSV under plumbing codes would be expedited and enhanced if further applicable
data were to be provided. Perhaps the most straightforward and meaningful
approach would be to monitor field demonstrations, possibly in military family
housing, in accordance with a plan developed by a committee of interested
groups, and to publicize the findings.
Realization of widespread benefits from utilization of RSV depends on code

recognition of the method as an alternative, engineered design by referencing
of a uniform design procedure in the codes; the general availability (from
manufacturers) of the smaller sizes of pipe and fittings for venting at reason-
able cost; and working familiarity with the method among contractors, engineers,
and inspectors.
4.3.2 Formulation of Code Changes and Generally Accepted Design Procedures
The current design procedures recommended by the American Society of Plumbing

Engineers [17], together with the material provided herein as appendix C,
should be considered by appropriate established code change committees, profes-
sional engineers and others as the basis for formulation of realistic code
changes and guidelines for the design of engineered systems employing RSV.
38
,
5. REFERENCES
[ 1 ] Hydraulic Performance of Full-Scale Townhouse System with Reduced-Size

Vents . National Bureau of Standards, Building Science Series BSS 60,
August 1975. M. J. Orloski and R. S. Wyly.
[2] Minimum Venting for Plumbing Systems . National Bureau of Standards Tech.
News Bulletin, May 1966.
[ 3 ] Studies of Reduced-Size Venting of Sanitary Drainage Systems in the U.S.A.

Paper 13, Proceedings of the CIB Commission W62 Symposium on Drainage and
Water Supply for Buildings, Stockholm, September 1973. R. W. Wyly and M.
J. Orloski.
[4] Laboratory Studies of the Hydraulic Performance of One-Story and

Split-Level Residential Plumbing Systems with Reduced-Size Venting .
National Bureau of Standards, Building Science Series BSS 49, March 1974.
R. S. Wyly. et al.
[ 5 ] Performance of Reduced-Size Venting in Residential DWW Systems . NAHB

Research Foundation, Inc. Publication LR2 10-17, 1971.
[6] Guide Criteria for the Evaluation and Design of Operational Breakthrough
Housing Systems . Report 10-200, 4 volumes, National Bureau of Standards,
September 1970.
[7] Capacities of Stacks in Sanitary Drainage Systems in Buildings . National

Bureau of Standards, Monograph Series, Monog. 31, July, 1961. R. S. Wyly
and H. N. Eaton.
[8] Cost Savings from Reduced-Size Venting . Plumbing Engineer, July/August,

September/October 1977. Harold E. Marshall, et al.
Procedures for Estimating Economic Benefits and Materials Savings for

Plumbing Drainage Systems with Reduced-Size Venting . Contractor’s report
to National Bureau of Standards, 1975. Dickerson/Gladstone Associates.
[9] Performance Concepts for Water Supply and Drainage Systems in Buildings .
Paper II-2. Proceedings of the CIB Commission W62 Symposium on Drainage

and Water Supply for Buildings, Washington, September 1976.
L. S. Galowin, et al.
[10] Performance Criteria and Plumbing System Design National Bureau of

,
Standards Technical Note Series TN 966, August 1975. M. J. Orloski and

R. S. Wyly.
[11] Hydraulics of Gravity Drainage Systems .Paper II-l, Proceedings of the

CIB Commission WGL Symposium on Drainage and Water Supply for Buildings,
Washington, D.C. September 1976, R. S. Wyly, et al.
39
[12] The Evolution of the Performance Approach in Plumbing , Proceedings of
the First NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference on Research and Innovation in the
Building Regulatory Process, Providence, R. I. September 1976. R. S.
,
Wyly, et al.
[13] Report on Hydraulics and Pneumatics of Plumbing Drainage Systems - I.

Bulletin 10. University of Iowa Studies in Engineering, 1973. F. M.
Dawson and A. A. Kalinske.
[14] Recommended Minimum Requirements for Plumbing . Report of Subcommittee on

Plumbing of Building Code Committee, National Bureau of Standards, BH13,
1928, revised 1931.
[15] Performance of a Single-Stack DWV System Utilizing Low-Angle Stack-Branch

Confluence of Bottom Shunt Venting .National Bureau of Standards,
Building Science Series BSS 41, 1972. R. S. Wyly and G. C. Sherlin.
[16] Frost Closure of Roof Vents . National Bureau of Standards BMS 142, 1954.
H. N. Eaton and R. S. Wyly.
[17] Reduced Size Venting Design . ASPE Data Book, Vol. I, Sec. II, Chapter 1,
Sanitary Drainage Systems, American Society of Plumbing Engineers, 1980.
40
.
APPENDIX A. PREOCCUPANCY TESTS: DETAILED INFORMATION
A. 1 DATA WITH VENT TERMINAL OPEN
Tests with the vent terminal open were described and the findings summarized in
section 3.3.1. Detailed data on trap-seal reductions are presented in table
A. 1 . 1
With the vent terminal open, the greatest trap-seal reductions of the idle traps
after four runs with the most severe loads (see tables A. 1.1 (a), A. 1.1(b) and
A. 1.1(c)) were:
Greatest Reduction
Unit Tested
Load Trap AH
mm
D/a Wl + W2 + LI t2 10
Wl + W2 + W3 T2 10
W1 + W2 + W3 + C5 t2 10
Wl + W2 + W3 + C5 + DET t2 10
E/e Wl + W2 + LI t2 5
F/b W1 + W2 + LI t2 5
W1 + W2 + T1 t2 5
a The designation DET means that detergent was used in the indicated
detergent-using fixture.
The greatest trap-seal reduction observed in these tests, 10 mm, is less

than one-half of the generally accepted limit of 25 mm.
The greatest vent pressure fluctuations measured in the tests with the
vent terminal open (see table 13) were:
A-l
2
Greatest Pressure Fluctuations (Suction)

Unit Tested
Vent Size ; Load AP
mm
D/a SI ; 1/2/ 1-1/2/1/2" W1 + W2 + W3 + C5 -20
1" -40
E/e Li ,2 ; W1 + W2 + W3
F/b K4(a,b);l" K4(a) + K4(b) -30
The maximum positive pressures observed did not exceed 25 mm.
Although one test load in the E/e unit produced an instantaneous peak suction
of 40 mm, the greatest trap-seal reduction shown for this load was only 10 mm.
In other studies, it has been found that with a repeated application of suction
to an idle trap-seal, a 25 mm cumulative trap-seal reduction may be expected
from a fluctuating, transient suction level of about 40 mm WG [1,3,10].
Therefore, the data with the vent terminal open show entirely satisfactory
trap-seal performance, with a safety factor of at least 2.5. Although two
loadings produced vent suction levels somewhat exceeding the generally accepted
level of 25 mm WG, this is not considered significant since no corresponding
excessive trap-seal reductions occurred.
A. 2 DATA WITH VENT TERMINAL CLOSED
Tests with the vent terminal closed were described briefly in section 3.3.3.
The data on trap-seal reductions and vent pressures with closed terminal are
presented in tables A. 2.1, A. 2. 2, A. 2. 3, and A. 2. 4.
Analysis of the pattern of trap-seal failure associated with data presented for
the D/a unit with vent terminal closed (see table A. 2. 3) has been aided by the
construction of figure A.2.1. Twelve replicate tests were made, each test
consisting of four runs without replenishment of water in the idle trap-seals
between runs. From figure A.2.1 it is apparent that some traps were more
subject to failure than others, that there was a variance in results from test
to test, and that the cumulative number of failed traps increased with the
number of runs made. In considering these data, it should be remembered that
the vent terminal was completely closed, and the load was a severe one. In
addition, the likelihood of four successive replicate runs with the same loading
seems very remote under service conditions. Therefore, it seems that if under
service conditions the vent terminal should become fully closed, most of the
traps would be replenished after the first "run" of a particular loading,
because of the probable random composition of successive loadings. Therefore,
it might be expected that representative results would more nearly resemble
those after run 1 than after run 4. Under this condition, there was only one
A-
3
trap failure, L2. This occurred only once in 12 replicate tests (see table
and the failure was very marginal (27 mm vs 25 mm).
A. 2. 3), The average trap-
seal reduction (in 12 tests) for trap L2 after the first run was 17.5 mm, a
value appreciably less than the generally accepted 25 mm.
A-
4 l < 4
cn g o o Q o < C < < < < < < < < < <
3 B
04 g CM *3- < < < o CM < < < < < < < < < <
3 B
GO
c
3 «=H 2 o o < c »=*4 *-=<
< < < < < < < < < <
M 3 s
U
3
O o o m m m o o o o o O o o m o •
m•
2 • • . . • • • • • . . . • •
Open
14-4 VsO
§ o o 04 CM CM o o 1
o m m o m m CM m CM
u
<D
u
U-t o o o O• m• m m m• o o o o o o O o O•
fH 2 • • « • • • • • • . • • •
03 g o m m m o* CM 04 p* M3 m m cn m m m f— cn
a
Terminal
c
o
•H (3
4-1 2 c < •< < m -S' CM iO ao vO M3 m o r»*
O j g —4
3
~a
Vent
0)
m g o o >— o o *— O o M3 < < M3 m < C p>.

r-4
m
u g +
with
0)
CD
1 o m o o• o o o o m o o o O m o• m• O•
fixture
a 04 g • •
m
.
m
•
m
•
m
• • • . •
m
•
m
• •
m m
ca
u
H B o CM o o
H r*. o o
1—4
4-4
Reduction
a)
i—t o < Ol CM < cn cn cn -3- m cn -3- cn CM sf >3 cn
M3
"O |
(discharging)
o o CM cn iO CM < m PS. iO vO o- m -3- r* >3- *3-
Trap-Seal
3 |
sr
fa
g
1
o o CM cn m cn cn o <3- m >3" < m -3- M3 m <
active
1.1 H H
fa fa
Q Q
an
A. + +
m m m m <r
Table
CJ o fa u u fa
+ + + + + +
cn 0) indicates
W cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn
 + + + + + + + + + + + +
X O
t4 CD CM CM CM
a CM Ol CM CM 04 CM CM CM CM Ol A
fa -H
/"S
i
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
symbol
cn cn •—4 *— •H •-H
-J 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
The
Test
No.
f-M CM cn >3- m M3 o* 00 cr> O CM CO m M3
i \ 1
O O O O O O O I I
o
4-1
>4-1
•o
I I I -• < 4-1
o
 as
I
0)
M
0)
S
CD
a
C0
u
(continued) < <<<<< l I

0)
CO
«
si
u
(0
<
CO
Open
u
m 0»
c
N o
0)
Cb +
Terminal
•
GO 0)
H I
co CO N N N a. 4J
CO Wi
H o
4-> a
o>
Vent
*o u
c
CO
0)
m m -o- m CO < «4- 1 1 
3> CO CO M »n
CJ CO
With
01
I
Oj •H 4
CO T3 C0
w u
4-1
o o < CM CO CM 1 1 C
•H
4-1
CO
• "O
0) a) CU
i— u si SI
Reduction T3 m .
m.
tn
•
m.
m •
o •
3
4-1
4-1U
H
CM CM CM CM CM m < 1 1 X
•H
u ss
o *
<4-1 <4-1
u
•a o
CM m CO CM CM CM CM 1 1 bo CU
c
C4-4
•H CO
Trap-Seal bO CO Q.
M 4-1 CO
CO S2 U
-C o u
o
co cm co -a- co co -S’ CM CO 0 ) 0)
1.1
t-l
0)
X4J
5
e
* so p«» <o > 4-> SI
•H CO 4-1
4-1 •a
o CD
Table CO o c
c o
a> M-l c •H
s-/ co 4-1 4-1
'0- m 3 3 CD X
CO CO
3
U 
u u 3 3 3 a H
>4-1 >4-1 T-l
T3
CO
o
<4-1
3 CO co CO C •H ai
4J sz
X o
+ + + + + 3 3 "3
C 3
u.
1-4 CO CNI CO
3
CM CM CM CM CM + + < t4 CD
Cb —-1
Q 3 3 3 3 3 3 —
> r— CO
CD
a>
+ + + + + + + (U s
CO
a u
(U
SI T3
V CD H
4-1 J= CO
CO
(U o
• H o a
H z CM CO -O’ m sO r-- ao as co x>
\ •
| | | | | | |
dash
OOGO<<<<<<<<QO<<< by
(continued)
OOOO<<<<<<O<<<<<< indicated
as
Open
OOOOmmominmininOinoO
••••••••••••••• 17,
OOOONNONNNNNONOO<l
•
Terminal
oooo—t—4— <o<!o-<oo through
<D
14
3 11
u
Vent
hnChCChO c<o-<oo — oo X
c
O tests
with
oooomooinmininmoinoino 00
c
OOOONOONNNNNONiflNm H00
for
CO
Reduction
o oooomcninininm<-<-i<n4<:— 4=
o
CO trap
CO
C(nfO<!N^<!<!<!<o-<00^00 (U
> K4(a)
tH
4-1
Trap-Seal
o
CO the
c
CO
in mm of
1.1
U o O oo
<u
CO
•3
<U
+ + + 4-1
c0
made
A.
<D
U
00
t-l
mm
uu
sr 'O'
24 24 04 24
St
JN
H J
H
H
CJ
•H
3 CO 13
V z + + + + + + + + + C
4-J not
u
Table •H CO + CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM -H CM CM CM
Pt4 T-l
Q “N /—
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 j 3 3 3 3
JQ
V—/ V
c0
t
CO
v—/
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + o
<r -<r m <r •HH cm NNHHH
24 CJ * 3 3 3 3 3 3 J 3 J J 3 3 3: a Observations
>>
00
rks.
cu
oo • 4= ma
0) o
N n N H
H Z vt in vO i— 00 CX> O CM CO <f lO
,
Table A. 2.1 Summary of Findings on Trap-Seal Reductions 3 in D and F Houses

with Vent Terminal Closed
Unit D: Trap--seal reductions after four runs with W1 + W2 + T2 discharged
Lavatories Shower Kitchen, Laundry , Utility
LI 12 13 SI K4 C5 F6
21 20 20 25 16 15 8
Unit D: Trap-seal reductions after four runs with W1 + W2 + W3 discharged
Lavatories Shower Tub Kitchen, Laundry, Utility
LI 12 13 SI T2 K4 C5 F6
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
45 39 29 24 25 38 28 24
Unit F/b: Trap--seal reductions^* after four runs with K4(a) + K4(b) discharged
Water Closets Lavatories Bathtubs Laundry , Utility
W1 W2 U 12 T1 T2 C5 F6
42 44 21 12 13 22 24 c
30 44 25 2 15 18 24 c
(0) d (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) c
a 12 test average.
b The vent terminals of both the F/a and F/b units were closed.
c Equipment malfunction; level not read.
d Numbers in parentheses in last line are corresponding trap-seal reductions

after four runs with the vent terminal open.
Table A. 2. 2 Trap-Seal Reduction with Vent Terminal Closed
A. D/a unit 3
Idle trap-seal reductions after four runs

Test Fixtures K4 13 L2 T2 C5 LI SI F6 W1 W2 W3
No. Discharged mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
13 W1 + W2 + W3 38 29 39 25 28 45 24 24.0 Ab A A
14 W1 + W2 + K4 A 10 39 25 16 31 25 7.0 A A 11
15 W1 + W2 + W3 + K4 A 23 42 25 22 41 25 6.0 A A A
16 W1 + W2 + W3 + C5 32 29 35 25 A 36 25 6.0 A A A
17 W1 + W2 + W3 23 25 27 23 25 30 22 17.5 A A A
18 W1 + W2 + K4 A 17 30 23 16 26 21 2.0 A A 12
19 W1 + W2 + W3 + K4 A 17 30 23 16 26 21 0.0 A A A
20 W1 + W2 4* W3 + C5 26 26 31 25 A 35 25 3.0 A A A
3 F6 vent closed.
b Symbol A indicates active (discharging) fixtures. Virtually zero seal reductions occurred
in the traps of such fixtures, due to refill provided by trailing flow at the end of the
discharge.
Table A. 2. 2 Trap-Seal Reduction with Vent Terminal Closed (continued)
B. F/b Unit
Idle trap-seal reductions after four runs

:
Test Fixtures K4(b) L2 T2 C5 LI Tl F6 W1 W2 K4(a)

No. Discharged mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
1 K4(b) Aa 2 0.0 0 1 0.0 0 2 2
2 K4(a) 1 7 — 6 7 0.0 12 12 A
3 C5(b) 3 2 0.0 A 1 2.5 2 3 1
4 K4(a) + K4(b) A 12 22.5 24 21 12.5 42 44 A
5 Wl + W2 + C5 +1 8 7.5 A 7 2.5 A A 4
6 W1 + W2 + C5 3 10 10.0 A 9 2.5 A A 4
7 Wl + W2 + K4 A 8 5.0 2 9 0.0 A A 4
8 Wl + W2 + K4 A 3 5.0 2 7 0.0 A A 3
9 Wl + W2 + K4 + C5 A 5 2.5 A 5 2.5 A A 2
10 Wl + W2 + K4 + C5 A 5 5.0 A 5 2.5 A A 0
11 L2 + W2 2 A 0.0 1 2 0.0 2 A -
12 W1 + W2 2 1 5.0 2 2 2.5 A A -
13 LI + W1 2 1 0.0 1 A 0.0 A 5 -
14 L2 + W1 1 A 0.0 1 0 0.0 A 3 -
15 W1 + W2 + LI 8 8 5.0 5 A 0.0 A A -
16 W1 + W2 + L2 2 A 2.5 2 4 2.5 A A -
17 W1 + W2 + T1 2 4 2.5 3 5 A A A -
18 K4(a) + K4(b) A 2 17.5 24 25 15.0 30 44 A
19 W1 + W2 + K4(b) A 15 12.5 28 15 2.5 A A 15
a Symbol A indicates active (discharging) fixtures. Virtually zero seal reductions

occurred in the traps of such fixtures.
A-
Table A. 2. 3 Effect on Idle Trap-Seal Reduction of Repeated
Loading without Refilling Trap6 between Runs,
with Vent Terminal Closed
Test unit: D/a Unit

Test load: W1 + W2 + T2 discharged
Idle Trap-Seal Reductions

Test
No. LI L2 L3 W3 SI K4 C5 F6
After first run

1 16 17 16 11 17.5 12 13 12.5
2 19 18 16 10 22.5 15 15 12.5
3 20 27 17 16 18 16 14 0
4 13 13 11 5 8 11 7 0
5 20 20 18 14 18 17 16 +2.5
6 23 22 20 17 19 19 16 0
7 15 16 16 11 16 16 14 0
8 19 17 18 16 18 16 17 0
9 19 16 16 11 13 10 15 0
10 20 18 18 11 20 16 16 0
11 15 13 16 11 15 15 15 0
12 15 13 12 7 10 11 10 0
AVG 17.8 17.5 16.2 11.7 16.2 14.5 14.0 1.9
After second run

1 20 17 18 16 20 14 15 7.5
2 20 19 16 12 22.5 15 16 12.5
3 20 29 18 19 18 18 14 0
4 20 18 18 15 18 16 16 0
5 24 20 21 21 22 20 22 0
6 24 23 20 20 19 19 18 0
7 23 20 19 19 22 19 18 0
8 25 20 21 21 19 20 20 2.5
9 24 20 21 18 19 19 17 0
10 25 20 24 20 20 21 19 0
11 17 16 17 15 15 16 15 0
12 19 18 17 15 16 15 14 0
AVG 21.8 20.0 19.2 17.6 19.2 17.7 17.0 1.9
After third run

1 20 19 20 19 55.5 15 15 2.5
2 20 19 17 13 22.5 16 16 12.5
3 21 29 18 20 19 18 15 0
4 16 23 20 20 20 19 19 0
5 22 23 23 27 28 22 22 0
6 25 23 21 25 25 21 21 2.5
7 24 20 21 22 22 21 21 5
8 25 23 24 26 25 22 22 25
9 26 23 23 25 26 22 21 5.0
10 19 16 17 15 16 16 15 0
11 19 18 17 16 16 16 15 2.5
AVG 21.5 21.4 20.1 20.7 25.0 18.9 18.4 5.0
After fourth run

1 21 20 20 20 25 16 15 2.5
2 20 19 17 15 25 16 18 17.5
3 21 30 18 20 20 18 16 0
4 29 28 26 29 26 26 25 7.5
5 22 25 24 28 29 22 22 2.5
6 25 23 21 25 25 23 21 0
7 25 23 23 26 27 23 24 5
8 27 25 25 28 26 23 22 5
9 27 23 24 26 26 23 22 5
10 26 24 25 26 29 25 24 2.5
11 19 18 17 15 16 16 16 0
12 20 18 17 16 16 17 16 2.5
AVG 23.5 23.0 21.4 22.8 24.2 20.7 20.1 4.2
A-10
/ / /
Table A. 2. 4 Vent Pressure Data for the D/a Unit with Vent Terminal Closed,
W1 + W2 + T2 Discharged (see also table A. 2. 3 and figure A. 2.1)
K4 SI W3
Test Time Time Time
Number/ Limit Peak Beyond Peak Beyond Peak Beyond
Run Switch Suction Suction Suction Suction Suction Suction
Number Setting Observed Limit Observed Limit Observed Limit
kPa kPa s kPa s kPa s
1/1 0.45£/ b/ cj b cj b/
2/ cj b 0.60 b cj b/
3/d/ 0.50 cl 0.00 0.60 0.08 cj 0.00
4/1 c 0.00 0.30 0.00 cj 0.00
5/1 sJ 0.07 0.60 0.00 0.55 0.00
6/1 cj * 0.11 0.70 0.24 0.60 0.06
7/1 sJ 2.30 0.50 4.00 0.45 1.85
8/1 sJ 4.19 0.50 6.03 0.50 4.21
8/2 0.25 c_/ 3.57 0.70 4.87 0.60 3.62
9/1 cj 2.56 0.55 3.45 0.45 2.31
10/1 cj 3.37 / 0.75 3.52 0.55 3.43
10/2 cj 3.86 0.60 5.10 0.60 3.80
11/1 cj 3.33 0.50 4.47 0.45 3.07
12/1 cj 0.60 0.50 1.76 0.35 0.66
a This suction value was also observed for the clothes washer for this
run.
b DAS not recording.
c Peak suction not observed.
d The first run of test

3 produced the only trap-seal reduction (L2) exceed in/
25 mm in the 12 test series.
A-l 1
PATTERN OF TRAP FAILURES
W1 + W2 + T2 DISCHARGED. D/A UNIT. VENT TERMINAL CLOSED
RUN 1
FAILED TRAP THIS RUN
RUN 2
13 PREVIOUSLY FAILED TRAP
1 23456 7 8 9 10 11 12
RUN 3
E3 PREVIOUSLY FAILED TRAP
RUN 4
B FAILED TRAP THIS RUN
H PREVIOUSLY FAILED TRAP
1 2 345 67 89 10 11 12
Figure A. 2.1 Pattern of trap failures with repetitive, heavy loading and
closed vent terminal
A-12
•
APPENDIX B. POST OCCUPANCY STUDY
B.l APPROACH AND OBJECTIVE
As indicated in foregoing sections of the report describing the preoccupancy

tests, the program was designed to monitor the performance of the plumbing
systems in a military family housing project after occupancy of the test units,
utilizing the sensors and data acquisition system described briefly in
section 3 and also shown in figures B.1.1 and B.1.2. The data acquisition
system was a medium speed, expandable system, with initial capability of storing
data from sensors at 100 points. Data were recorded on magnetic tape with a
paper printout option. Scan speed was 20 channels per second for magnetic
tape recording and 5 channels per second using the printout option. The DAS
was remotely controlled and had provisions for data transmission by telephone
data lines. The system was interfaced with a computer for either control
and/or data storage purposes. Special sensing instrumentation was installed
for measuring the performance of the plumbing systems. Trap-seal depth changes
were sensed by means of electrically conductive pins inserted through the
walls of the plastic traps at 5 mm intervals of elevation. Vent pressure
changes were sensed by combination pressure switch-gages that could be preset
to maintain a closed circuit during time periods where the pressure fluctua-
tions exceeded the preset range. See table 2 for further detail. Among param-
eters measured on real-time basis (clock timer data) were trap-seal changes,
the existence of vent pressures outside a preset range, occurrence of flow in
individual fixture supply pipes, volume of water delivered to the dwelling
unit and volume delivered to the water heater, and electrical energy consumed
by the water heater.
It was expected that the data obtained by the method outlined here would be
useful in future analysis and updating of existing water supply pipe sizing
procedures that have been in use for over 40 years.
The primary objectives of the post-occupancy study were:
1. To verify under the actual service conditions the adequacy of performance

of the reduced-size vents, which had been found adequate by preoccupancy
tests (described in foregoing sections of this report). In particular,
data on trap-seal reduction and vent pressure were to be compared with the
accepted plumbing standards of 1.0 inch maximum allowable trap-seal reduc-
tion and + 1.0 inch WG maximum allowable vent pressure fluctuation.
2. To correlate the measured trap-seal depth changes, the associated pressure

excursions in the vents; and the occurrence of specific fixture operations
in normal service loading by the occupants.
Other objectives were:
1. To obtain data on time distribution of water use in individual fixture

types, and on hot and cold water consumption and peak delivery rates In
individual dwelling units. From such data, characteristic periods of t i rr.«
between fixture operations on frequency of use can be derived. Such data
B-l
are essential to the rational updating of traditional procedures for the
design of water service and distribution piping, which are based on the
Hunter method.
2. To obtain energy consumption data, such as the quantity and time

distribution of energy consumed in heating water. Such data are needed
for comparison with current estimates and with recent data obtained in
civilian housing projects, as one element in the improvement of energy
management programs.
B.2 RESULTS
Data were obtained intermittently and stored on magnetic tape, covering various
periods of time over a space of approximately 3 years. Sample analyses of the
data were made, from which it was concluded that vent pressure fluctuations
were negligible^ and trap-seal retention was adequate. Inspections of the roof
vents after a period of nearly 3 years showed no evidence of blockage. No
plumbing problems or complaints were reported to the Andrews Air Force Base
housing maintenance office that could be attributed to the existence of the
reduced-size vents. Any problems reported were for normal plumbing maintenance
or as a result of the presence of sensors installed for experimental purposes.
After about three years, the instrumented traps and the flow switches, as
well as exposed wiring and tubing, were removed to restore the wet piping
systems to an unaltered condition. Where appropriate, standard plumbing and
building materials were used to replace instrumented components and to repair
damaged elements. As had been expected, deterioration of the trap pins from
electrolytic corrosion ultimately resulted in some of the traps leaking.
Because of the great quantity of data that were recorded, and because of the
need to edit the records to remove spurious data, the resources available to
the program proved inadequate to complete the reduction, analysis, and
reporting of the data. The data are retained by NBS in anticipation of some
future opportunity to complete the analysis and report the detailed results.
Figures B.2.1 through B.2.8, and tables B.2.1 and B.2.2 show samples of data
extracted from the tapes, giving the distribution of hot and cold water flow
rates and consumption by fixture/outlet in two test units over a 5 day period.
1 In fact, essentially no data were obtained on the existence of vent pressures

outside the range of + 1 in W.G. By resetting the range to + 0.5 in. WG,
some data were obtained. This indicated that vent pressures outside the
range + 1 in WG the accepted norm, almost never occurred with the
,
reduced-size vents.
B-2
.
Based on the experience gained in this study, the following recommendations

are offered to future researchers:
1. It is very important to avoid the recording of nonessential data,

because a very large quantity of data is produced.
2. The parameters measured should relate directly to the corresponding

parameters addressed in plumbing codes, standards and generally
accepted design practice, and in currently accepted mathematical
models.
3. Sensors should be very carefully selected or designed to minimize

malfunction and maintenance. Preliminary field trials of candidate
sensors should be made to check their reliability and general
suitability before final selection for a research program. Sticking
flow switches caused false data storage on the magnetic tape of the
DAS and depleted the tape available for recording actual usage
events
Tables B.2.1 and B.2.2 give the cumulative hot and cold (and combined hot and
cold) water consumption recorded over a period of 5 days for tests units D/a and
F/a. These data also show the distribution of the water consumption of fixture
and outlet.
Figures B.2.1 through B.2.8 show the distribution of hot and cold (and combined
hot and cold) water flow rates by fixture and proportion of flow occurrences
over a period of 5 days for test units D/a and F/a.
B-3
Outlet
and
Fixture
by
Distribution
and
D/a
Unit
period).
Test
day
Occupied 5
a
in
covering
Consumption
sample
(data
Water
B.2.1
Table
H
4-4
s m CO o rs pH pH CM pH
m o
o o
o O
m >a- m 9s?
Outlet
<u
o
nO
•
CM
•
nO
•
o•
NO
•
CM
•
oo
9
o 0 0 0 0 0
rs
0
o 9
O
O
(-1 on CO St CM CM oo ON pH O
pH
^H NO H
<u pH pH CM
Oh
and rH
CO
o
H OS
3 On rs rs o 00 rs oo
m
ON
o
cm o
o o
o
cm
m
CM NO nD
o
Fixture
O nO CO sf CM NO ON
0
St St
rH • • • • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rH o CO H O CO pH oo ON rs ON ON m
CO on
H nO ON in St rs rs CM o CM pH rs
by
o CM CO pH CM pH ON
pH
3
4-1 4J
X
H c
3
00
nO
00
CM
m
m o
o
oo
m CO
ON
m
ON
o o
o o
o o
o O
o O
o
o
ON
S'?
o
Distribution
u* o • • • • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
M M oo CO rs CM CM rs CO <3- pH
0) 3 pH **H CM pH pH
-o 4-1 Oh
CO
<v
3 4-1
and CO o
3> EC CO
3 m pH O
m o CM N© O •3- o o
o o
o o o
o
NO St
F/a
u
3
O
iH
rs
•
CO
• •
o•
CO
•
rs
•
CM
•
ON
0
o0 0 0
o 0 0
st
0 0
4J
CO
rH
CO
on
st
nO
CM
o
NO
o
o
oo
p=H
pH
CM
'J’
o
ON
pH
pH
o
3 o pH pH CM pH pH 00
Unit
period).
4-4
Test
s ON NO o CO CM pH CO m
m o o 00 ON
m o a*
3
o
St
•
pH
•
NO
•
o•
rs
•
c—
•
00
•
CM
0 0
o0
o 0
NO
0 0
o 0
o
o
u M co CO CM CM CM CM NO CM NO pH
day
3 0) pH c=H pH co
4J Oh
Occupied 5 CO
3
a 33
rH
o 00
CJ 3 m rs o in pH 00 m CM o o CM
m
CM o CM
in
o
rH
ON
•
o•
ON
•
o• •
ON
•
CO
•
pH
0
ON
0
o0
o 0 0
St
0
o 0 0
covering rH o rs o ON St o
m CO ON r** ON CO
CO
o
CO CO St
pH
CM
H rs CM o
CM
CM
St pH
Consumption
sample
So >N
M M
o is O P In H U
4J at 4-4 0) 3 3 3
(data
CO 3 CO > •H rH r—i
Water > -Q o > -Q o 14-1 •H •H
CO
3 ^3
3
H
J=
CO
M
0)
CO
4-4 H
3 X
c/a
-X
o
•H
33
o
H
O
H
i-i -X J= o -X •H
3 3 JE JE -3 CO J3 -3 X o o a .3 -C
U u
rH
4-1 •H 4-4 4-4 4J CO 4-4 4-4 4-1 tH o 3 3
X CO CO CO CO 3 CO 3 3 rH o •x 3 3 3 4J
•H pa pa pa pa pa pa •H tH pa P3 JE o
B.2.2
3
3 c 3 s
CO
3 M M is
c/a •H
c/a
3
CJ 3 U
cn
3
H
je o O o -3 0) 04 3 4J 3 O 3 3
o s
Q
s s 4-4
o
4-1 u 4-1
3
3 M
3
3
u
g u £
4-1 0 0 CD CD O § cn CO
Table •H o o o rH eg eg 3 M u S X X (H Pi o X Q
S^HSORS
RANGE
OVER
VENTS.
BACK-PRESSURE
FIXTURE
AND
SELECTED
SUCTION
IN
HERE.
INSTALLED
NOTSHOWN WERE
NOTE:
-©HI©
Figure B.1.1 Schematic of automatic monitoring instrumentation for
post-occupancy tests
B-6
Figure B.1.2 Schematic of post-occupancy field data acquisition system
B-7
1 « 1
1.0
.9
.8
.7
. 6
OCCURRENCES
.5
OF
.4-
PROPORTION
.3
. 2-
-
mimtn « i • «
• • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • i i 1
. 1
mniMM
iinmiii
trill
*•1
i • 1
ft* ft
Mllllllll
1 1 1 V 1
flaw 1 1 1 1 1 mu1 1 1
o-
.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
TOTAL COLD WATER FLOW RATE (gpm)
Figure B.2 1 Distribution of cold water flow rates in master bath shower.
D/a
unit (data sample covering a 5 day period)
B-8
1.0
.9
.8
.7
. 6
OCCURRENCES
.5 -
OF . 4-
PROPORTION
.3 -
1 1 1 < t
iiii*
- mi iimi
mu
•
iiim
i • 1 1 •
inn
tlfVf lllll
t immif iimi * 1 1 > i
- iiimiiimiti vim i
viimiiiimii vim 1 1 •
mtiiimiim inn • 1 1
f IMI MMIIIIIIIIMI Mill •••

miim iiifiiviiiMnnm util
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
TOTAL HOT WATER FLOW RATE (gpm)
Figure B.2.2 Distribution of hot water flow rates in master bath shower, D/a
B-9
1
1.0 -
-
.9
i
.8 .
.7 I
.6 -
i
OCCURRENCES
.5 .
I
OF 1„
.4- 1
i
I
PROPORTION
.3 -
i
I
i
i iimi
2 - i • I • t
mu
-
.
VMM
i
i
1 1 » 1
Mill
nm f
mu
» 9 1 1 1
i Mill till! • 1 M 1 1
* ’ 1 9 V t V « i f i « (till I 1 I 1
. 1
1 1 1 9 > flit* 9 1 1 1 1
'*
O'
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
COMBINED HOT AND COLD WATER FLOW RATE (gpm)
Figure B.2 .3 Distribution of combined hot and cold water flow rates in master
bath shower, D/a unit (data sample covering a 5 day period)
B-10
1 1« )
« 1 1 1
1.0
UIM
* « I M
.9
t I I I (
t I t I t
HIM
.8 UIM
UIM
mu
.7 HIM
I 1 1 I I
HIM
HIM
HIM
. 6
I II If
Hill
OCCURRENCES
HIM
.5
HIM
I I I I I
OF II 1 1 I
.4- I 1 1 I
I I 1 I
PROPORTION
HIM
I I I I
.3
HIM
HIM
. 2- HIM
HIM
Hilt
I I I I I
-
I I I It
. 1 I I t I I
I I I I I
HIM
M
I I I
0* r i .1. ...... ..I..-.
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 A .0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Figure B.2.4 Distribution of combined hot and cold water flow rates in common
bath shower head. D/a unit (data samples covering a 5 day period
B-Il
1
I
1.0 -
.9 -
.8 .
.7
OCCURRENCES
. 6
OF .5 -
PROPORTION
.4- -
.3
. 2-
1 1 1 1
I » I «
.r ;
*
0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
TOTAL COLD WATER FLOW RATE (gpm)
Figure B.2.5 Distribution of cold water flow rates in master bath shower, F/a
B-12
1 1
1.0
.9
.8
.7
OCCURRENCES
.6
OF
.5
.4-
PROPORTION
2- - iimtiiii
1111111111
iiniiiiii 1 1 1 1
iiiiiiim 1 1 1
iiuivnti
• mu
« i » » r
nit
•
imniiif in
i>
iniMiiuiMit
• *
1 1
i
1
1 1
1 1 1 1 •
• iff* i * 1 1 1 1 « 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I B 1
iiiiiMiiiiiiiiimiiiiii 1 1 1 1 1
f i iMvimivivf miivtiit • fill
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
TOTAL HOT WATER FLOW RATE (gpni)
Figure B.2.6 Distribution of hot water flow rates in master bath shower, F/a
B-13
1
1.0
8
.9 -
i
.7
. 6 -
OCCURRENCES
.5 -
OF
. 4 . :
PROPORTION
.3
iiiii
.2- -
i
mu
1 1 1 1
i
i 1 1 1
i iiiii
.1- • i 1 1
f v i v v IIIII
i
9 • V V « i i • i i
i iiiii f • I 9 V iiiii
0 i*---
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Figure B.2.7 Distribution of combined hot and cold water flow rates in master
bath shower, F/a unit (data sample covering a 5 day period)
B-14
APPENDIX C. RECOMMENDED CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION
OF REDUCED-SIZE VENTS FOR ONE- AND TWO-STORY HOUSING UNITS
C.l INTRODUCTION
Standard design of sanitary drain-waste-vent (DWV) systems in accordance with

conventional plumbing code requirements provides ventilation piping as an
integral part of the DWV system. The principal function of the vent piping is
to protect the trap-seals against excessive depletion from suction or against
blowing from back pressure. Other functions commonly ascribed to vent piping
include the facilitation of rapid and silent drainage from the fixtures, venti-
lation of gases from the public sewer or septic tank, and the minimization of
the buildup of concentrations of gases in the DWV system that may be corrosive
to some piping materials.
The variables that determine safe, economic vent design and sizing are numerous,
difficult to define, and intricately related. Among these variables are the
time dependent air flow in the DWV pipe network. The interdependence of the
drains and vents for functional adequacy, the likelihood of random simultaneous
or concurrent (overlapping) discharge of two or more fixtures, the hydraulic
discharge characteristics of the drainage from the individual fixtures, the
heights of the drainage stacks, the geometry of the drainage fittings, drain
pipe sizes, and the specific configuration of the DWV system.
Various research programs to study the hydraulics and pneumatics of DWV systems
have been conducted; some have provided semi-scientific, more or less empirical,
bases for relaxing specification of some of the stringent requirements (e.g.,
unnecessarily large stack sizes and individual venting of each and every fix-
ture) in plumbing practice as regulated by the early plumbing codes in the
United States.
Among the mitigating effects of this research have been the gradual recognition
by codes of certain cost-saving practices such as wet venting, stack venting,
common venting, and the use of 3 inch diameter soil stacks and building drains
under many conditions. Based on a combination of research findings and empiri-
cal or practical judgments, codes have, from time-to-time updated the require-
,
ments for sizing and configuration of vent systems. Generally, this evolution-
ary process has resulted in requirements less restrictive than they were before
the research was conducted. However, many codes still require a considerable
amount of ventilation piping, undoubtedly more than necessary for many systems.
In the 1960s and 1970s feasibility studies were conducted, in response to

interest and support by home builders and by family housing branches of the
agencies of the U.S. Department of Defense, to reduce the minimum sizes of dry
vents prescribed by codes, as they might relate to one- and two-story residen-
tial systems. It was hypothesized that size reductions for such systems might
be based on initial considerations as follows:
1. Traditional criteria for sizing main vents (stack vents and vent
stacks) were derived from research data obtained under hydraulic test
C-l
conditions which were more severe than those normally occuring in
actual service, especially in one- and two-story residential buildings.
2. The traditional criteria for sizing fixture vents and branch vents
were purely empirical and based on practical experience and collective
opinion.
3. Analysis indicated that air flow demands in the vents of the DWV
systems of one- and two-story buildings are substantially less than
those provided for by the prescriptive sizing requirements of
plumbing codes.
4. Traditional criteria were based on the assumption that a substantial

diameter reduction in vent pipes occurred during service from the
accumulation of corrosion products. With pipe materials not
significantly subject to corrosion the assumption can be challenged.
The results of the several RSV studies have confirmed the hypothesis that
reduced-size vents may perform adequately and have provided certain new design
criteria and installation guidelines to facilitate the utilization of reduced-
size venting as a viable technique.
In reduced-size venting design, trap-seal retention and absence of blow-back

is the criterion of performance rather than suction and back pressure. When
the application of RSV is limited to specific conditions, significant savings
in piping can be made, with safety and health still maintained.
The magnitude of savings obtainable is affected significantly by the total

length of pipe and the number and types of fittings. In general, it can also
be stated that it costs less to use small piping than to use large piping, if
factors other than size are assumed equal.
Among the principal variables affecting the cost of any system are the
following:
1 . Relative locations and positioning of the fixtures and appliances .
The following design objectives should be sought, where possible, so

as to minimize costs:
(a) the fixtures and appliances should be grouped to limit the number
of fittings and the amount of horizontal piping.
(b) where possible, the design should provide for back-to-back
bathrooms.
(c) In two-story systems, an attempt should be made to place bathrooms
and plumbing walls one above the other ("stacked").
2. Complexity of the vent system .
The system configuration and amount of piping is affected by code

requirements on venting. For example, stack venting and wet venting
C-2
designs provide for simpler configurations and less piping than
individual venting.
3 . Field changes .
The nature and extent of field changes can affect overall costs
significantly. In general, field changes should be made only in
response to architectural or site constraints, to reduce complexity
and/or the amount of piping, or to avoid inadvertant violation of the
code.
4. Cost estimating procedures used by the plumbing contractor .
There appears to be wide differences by different contractors in the

variables they consider and in their procedures for taking the vari-
ables into account in estimating costs for an installed system.
Thus, cost estimates may vary considerably between contractors, and
experience suggests this variability may be accentuated when an
innovative design is presented.
C.2 GENERAL LIMITATIONS
Reduced-size venting considerations herein have been limited to DWV system

elements where (1) the waterfall distance from fixtures through their stacks or
vertical waste pipes to the next lower vented horizontal drain (building drain
or horizontal fixture branch drain) does not exceed 18 ft^, (2) to residential
occupancies and (3) to residential-type fixtures.
This would limit RSV to systems or components with a maximum of three floors of
plumbing fixtures with connections distributed over a vertical distance not
exceeding 18 ft. This would generally include all one-story residences with
or without basements or crawl spaces, most split level designs, and two-story
Colonial designs conforming to the 18 ft distribution rule. This would pre-
clude RSV in two-story designs with full basement and sewer below basement in
which plumbing connections are made in each of the three branch intervals to
a stack running the full height of the building.
Reduced-size venting is limited to DWV systems, the wet-piping of which fully

complies with the applicable plumbing code, and the dry vent system configura-
tion and general design of which fully complies with the applicable plumbing
code with the exception of sizing.
1 Applications to systems of greater height may be feasible if adequate

provision is made for pipe and fitting friction losses in design. Prelimi-
nary research in this area has provided encouragement. (See item 3 in C.7.)
C-3
^
Reduced-size vents sized in accordance with C.4 shall be made of corrosion-

resisting materials, such as copper or approved thermoplastics .
Reduced-size vents shall not be used for fixture and stack vents below an
elevation 6 inches above the flood rim of the highest fixture served by the
vent, nor for any portion of a vent subject to intermittent wetting; e.g., by
water rise due to a drain blockage or pressure that could be exerted by a
pumped discharge.
See Section C.5 for important installation guidelines for reduced-size venting.
C.3 PRELIMINARY DATA
In considering the utilization of reduced-size venting, it is essential that

the proponent (designer, contractor, builder, etc) consult with the local
plumbing code enforcement agency, or other governmental department having
jurisdiction before designing the system. This is essential for assuring
that this sizing method will be acceptable under the applicable ordinance and
to ascertain what plans, specifications, and other information may be required
by the Administrative Authority prior to granting approval.
In resizing standard dry vent systems in accordance with the specific

procedures given in section C.4, certain preliminary data should be obtained
before applying the RSV criteria. Among these are the following:
1 . Site and Geographic Conditions
The likelihood of abnormal pressures in and surcharging (overloading)

of the public sewer should be estimated based on consultation with the
local sewer authority. Where surcharged sewers are known to occur
frequently RSV sizing may be increased by one pipe size to provide
additional venting capacity. Under intermittent surcharged sewer
conditions at infrequent intervals relief may be provided from man
hole venting, or increased for each ten living units (at continuous
site locations) as discussed in C.5. Also, the incidence of frost
closure of vent terminals should be evaluated based on discussions
with the Administrative Authority for plumbing and with local plumbing
contractors who have had some period of experience in the particular
^ For materials subject to corrosion, prudent allowances for gradual diameter

reduction would have to be made. Recommendations for such allowances have
not been developed.
C-4
geographical area. Weather records^, ASHRAE criteria^ and other
available data^ may be helpful in estimating the likelihood of
frost closure. Vent terminals should probably be enlarged in accor-
dance with the local plumbing code in localities having minimum winter
design temperatures of less than 0°F (97-1/2 percent Column of the
ASHRAE Criterion for the time during December, January, and February).
The critical areas in which frost closure is likely, according to
this criterion, are largely in some portions of the Northern Rocky
Mountains, upper Midwest and upper New England.
2. Piping Materials and Standard DWV Design Data
Since the RSV design procedures are intended for application to

standard plumbing plans and specifications, a set of such plans
and specifications acceptable to or approved by the Administrative
Authority should be reviewed, together with the applicable plumbing
code or portions thereof, as a basis for applying the RSV criteria.
Among the types of information that should be obtained from this
review are the following:
a) Piping materials and joining methods, specified and alternate

materials and methods that may be acceptable as well as any
specifications relating to installation procedures.
b) Specific physical arrangements of fixtures and DWV piping,

as indicated particularly by plan drawings showing the
locations of all plumbing fixtures and by isometric
schematics showing the proposed arrangement and sizing of the
DWV piping (both wet and dry elements) which is acceptable as
standard by the code.
C.4 S IZ ING PROCEDURE
C.4.1 Activity Sequence and Sizing Criteria
A logical sequence of steps should be employed in modifying standard plans and

specifications for the dry vents of sanitary DWV systems. The following
sequence is suggested:
2 Evaluated Weather Data for Cooling Equipment Design, 1963 and Addendum No. 1
Summer and Winter Data Fluor Products Company, Santa Rosa, Calif., 1964.
,
Engineering Weather Data, Army, Navy, and Air Force Manual TM 5-785, 1963.
3 Weather Data and Design Conditions . ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, Chapter

33, Table 1, Climatic Conditions for United States and Canada, American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, 1972.
^ Part 3, Technical Section . National Plumbing Code Handbook, McGraw Hill,

1957. Frost Closure of Roof Vents. National Bureau of Standards BMS 142,
1954.
C-5
1. Obtain preliminary data on site and geographic conditions, piping
materials, and specific plans and specifications for a standard DWV
design acceptable to or approved by the Administrative Authority
(see section C.3). Based on these data, review the general limi-
tations applicable to RSV (see section C.2) before proceeding to
step 2.
2. Prepare isometric schematics showing DWV piping arrangements, fixture

unit loads and pipe sizes in accordance with the following procedure:
a) Label each dry vent with a letter designation, and the fixture
unit load served according to table C.4.1. Then determine the
appropriate classification of each dry vent: (1) individual or
common fixture vent, or waste stack vent, (2) soil stack vent,
(3) branch vent or vent header, if any, and (4) vent stack, if
any.
b) Label each dry vent with the appropriate size determined in

accordance with the following sequence and criteria:
(i) Fixture and stack vents - table C.4.2.
(ii) Branch vents, beginning with elements connected to the

fixture vents most distant from and proceeding toward the
main vent, according to tables C.4.3, C.4.4, and C.4.5.
(iii) Vent stacks - table C.4.6.
(iv) Vent headers - size as a branch vent, considering each

element connecting to the header as a fixture vent,
according to tables C.4.3, C.4.4, and C.4.5.
(v) Vent terminals - if frost closure is likely in accordance

with preliminary data (section C.3), size according to the
requirements of the applicable plumbing code.
c) Label all wet-pipe (drainage) elements with the appropriate

standard sizes approved by or acceptable to the Administrative
Authority.
C.4.2 Illustrative Examples
Case 1 . Assume a two-story townhouse design, figure C.4.1, that has been
determined acceptable under the applicable plumbing code. Preliminary investi-
gation reveals that PVC plastic is acceptable for all DWV pipe and fittings,
and that sewer surcharging and frost closure is unlikely, based on site
conditions, geographical location, and local experience.
To apply the RSV sizing criteria, each dry vent is labeled with a letter
designation, and classified and sized as illustrated in table C.4.7. The loads
C-6
served and the RSV sizes are then transferred to the schematic (figure C.4.2).
Both standard and reduced-sizes may be shown here for comparison if desired.
Summarizing, table C.4.7 and figure C.4.2 show the results of the classification
and sizing of the dry vents according to the RSV criteria.
Case 2 . Assume a one-story slab-on-grade ranch house design, figure C.4.3,

that has been determined acceptable under the applicable plumbing code. Other
assumptions are as in case 1.
Table C.4.8 and figure C.4.4 show the results of the classification and sizing
of the dry vents according to the RSV criteria.
The system shown in figures C.4.3 and C.4.4 requires five roof penetrations for
the five vents. A vent header might provide some overall cost reduction and
certainly would improve the appearance of the roof line. Table C.4.9 and figure
C.4.5 show the results of the application of the RSV criteria (table C.4.3) to
the sizing of the vent header.
C.5 INSTALLATION GUIDELINES AND DATA FOR BUILDING OWNER
The plumbing designer should maintain close contact with the installing
contractor before and during installation of the DWV system. The designer
should explain the special requirements of the reduced-size venting method to
the installer, who may be unfamiliar with them. To facilitate understanding
by the installer, the designer should review the basic design drawings and
specifications with the installer and when necessary to describe the system
fully, should provide more detailed drawings. This can enhance the potential
economies and level of performance obtainable from RSV installations.
The designer should make regular field inspections to be sure that the design
conditions are met. This is particularly important in the event field changes
are introduced by the contractor (as is often done for legitimate reasons in
typical plumbing work). The designer's early cognizance and review of the
plans for field changes is essential to assure conformance of the field changes
with the RSV criteria, and to assure that any RSV design changes necessitated
by the field piping changes are made in a timely fashion.
The owner should be given copies of the plumbing drawings for permanent record
so that any future additions can be properly designed and sized, and that the
location of all piping elements and drain cleanouts can be readily determined
in the event future maintenance, repairs or remodeling should be required.
Ideally, this coordination between installer and designer should be employed in

all plumbing work, not just for RSV. However, plumbing contractors are
generally quite familiar with traditional code approved designs, so that the
need for close monitoring of the installation process is reduced in comparison
with that required for innovative designs.
In relation to installation requirements, the designer and the installing

contractor should be familiar with the general limitations given in section C.2,
C-7
so that compliance will be assured in the field. The following detailed
guidelines should be reviewed by both designer and installer.
If single bowl kitchen sinks (or double bowl sinks with separate traps and waste
pipes) are equipped with food waste grinders, the shutoff head of the grinder
unit, in height of water column, should be ascertained. The sink vent serving
the compartment with the grinder should not be reduced in size below an eleva-
tion 6 inches (15 centimeters) above the level corresponding to the shutoff
head of the unit.
This limitation does not apply to a grinder in a double-bowl sink with a single
trap and waste. A similar precaution should be observed in relation to any
fixture with a pumped discharge not having a drain air gap or air break.
Because most dishwashers and clothes washers are installed with a drain air gap
or break, they do not usually pose a potential problem in this respect.
The DWV system design should be reviewed to evaluate the possibility of sewage
rising into any of the vents in case of a typical drain blockage occurring any-
where in the system followed by the discharge of fixtures. In most cases, it
will be apparent that the rise in a given vent will be limited to the flood rim
level of a particular fixture. No portion of a vent at an elevation up to
6 inches (15 cm) above the floor rim level or any higher elevation that could
be wetted from such occurrences should be reduced in size.
Since reduced-size vents may not be suitable for the entry of standard drain
cleaning tools, care should be taken to assure that drain cleanouts or clean-
out equivalents are adequate to assure compliance with the cleanout
requirements of the code.
In the selection of fittings for size reduction, the most economical available
fitting or combination of fittings should be used. Generally, the fewest
number of fittings should be used that will accomplish the necessary size
reductions.
Pipe and fittings customarily used in DWV work are not now manufactured in
sizes less than 1-1/4 inches. In sizes of 1 inch and less, therefore, it will
be necessary to use pipe and fittings manufactured for other applications,
such as water supply; for example, type M copper tube, or SDR PR or Schedule 40
PVC plastic pressure pipe. Probably DWV type fittings would be manufactured in
these small sizes if RSV design becomes more generally accepted In plumbing
codes and were more widely specified.
Care should be taken to follow the recommendations and specifications of the

applicable manufacturers for the design, selection and installation of joints
and joining materials.
Requirements for pitch and support of reduced-size vent piping are identical
to those for standard venting, except that closer support spacing for horizon-
tal runs of the sizes smaller than 1 1/4 in may be required in accordance with
the pipe manufacturer's recommendations since standard venting does not
recognize nor specify support spacing for such smaller vent sizes.
C-8
.
Vent terminals of 1 inch size and less should be fitted with durable, corrosion
resistant, enlarged screen caps of 1/8 to 3/16 inch mesh having an open area
at least 150 percent of that of the terminal. Where approved by the Adminis-
trative Authority, vents may terminate through a wall or beneath an overhang,
provided that the end is turned down and that such terminals are located at
least 2 feet above any openable window, door, or ventilation opening within 10
feet horizontally, and are located at least 10 feet horizontally from the
property line except for adjacent townhouse units. No vent shall terminate in
a wall space, floor-ceiling cavity, or attic.
Vent terminals in frost closure prone localities shall be sized according to

the requirements of the applicable plumbing code. However, the preliminary
evaluation of the likelihood of frost closure in a particular geographic area
(see section C.3) may provide a basis for a waiver on this requirement.
In tract housing, or townhouse rows in which RSV is planned for all the units, a
soil stack should extend full size to the atmosphere for each ten living units
or fraction thereof exceeding four units connected to the street sewer between
sewer manholes. This full size stack should be for the unit furthermost down-
stream in each ten such units or fraction thereof exceeding four units.
C.6 APPROVAL OF RSV DESIGN
The designer should assemble and organize the information required by the
Administrative Authority, using an acceptable or agreed-upon format. The
designer should be available to review this information with the Administrative
Authority. Generally, this would include drawings and specifications relating
to the RSV design. Other data may be requested by the Administrative Authority
4. the designer should prepare such data as a part of the submittal.
and If this
supplemental data will be required, this fact should be ascertained from the
preliminary discussion with the Administrative Authority (section C.3).
C.7 CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY ON RSV
1. Minimum Venting for Plumbing Systems . National Bureau of Standards Tech.

News Bulletin, May 1966.
2 . Performance of Reduced-Size Venting in Residential DWV Systems . NAHB

Research Foundation, Inc. Publication LR210-17, 1971.
3. An Investigation of the Adequacy of Performance of Reduced-Size Vents

Installed on a Ten-Story Drain, Waste and Vent System . Stevens Institute
of Technology Report SIT-DL-73-1708 July,
,
1973. T. Jackson and T. P.
Konen
Studies of Reduced-Size Venting of Sanitary Drainage Systems in the U.S.A.

Paper 13, Proceedings of the CIB Commission W62 Symposium On Drainage and
Water Supply for Buildings, Stockholm, September 1973. R. S. Wyly and
M. J. Orloski.
C-9
5 . Laboratory Studies of the Hydraulic Performance of One-Story and
Split-Level Residential Plumbing Systems with Reduced-Size Venting .
National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series BSS 49, March 1974.
R. S. Wyly, et al.
6. Hydraulic Performance of a Full-Scale Townhouse System with Reduced-Size

Vents . National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series BSS 60,
August 1975. M. J. Orloski and R. S. Wyly.
7 . Procedures for Estimating Economic Benefits and Materials Savings for

Plumbing Drainage Systems with Reduced-Size Venting . Contractor's report
to National Bureau of Standards, 1975. Dickerson/Gladstone Associates.
8. The Evolution of the Performance Approach in Plumbing . NBS Special

Publication 473, Proceedings of the First NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference on
Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process, Providence,
R. I., September 1976. R. S. Wyly, et al.
9. Potential Savings from Using Reduced-Size Venting on the United States .

NBS Special Publication 553, Proceedings, CIB Commission W62 Symposium,
Washington, September 1976. H. E. Marshall, et al.
10. All's Well that Vents Well — Pre-Occupancy Performance of Field Units
with Reduced-Size Vents . Yearbook of the American Society of Sanitary
Engineering, 1976. M. J. Orloski.
1 1 . Economic Aspects of the Installation of Reduced-Size Vents and Various

Standard Venting . Contractor's report to National Bureau of Standards,
1976. George Kauffman.
12. Cost Savings from Reduced-Size Venting . Plumbing Engineer, July-August

and September/October 1977. Harold E. Marshall, et al.
13. Reduced Size Venting Design . Plumbing Engineer, May/June 1978. E.

Brownstein.
14. Performance Criteria and Plumbing System Design . National Bureau of

Standards Technical Note Series TN 966, August 1978. M. J. Orloski and
R. S. Wyly.
15. Reduced-Size Venting Design . ASPE Data Book, Vol. 1 Fundamentals of

Plumbing Design, Section II, Chapter 1, Sanitary Drainage Systems, 1979-80;
also Vol. 1, Sec. II, Chapter 17, Vents and Venting, 1983-84, American
Society of Plumbing Engineers.
C-10
^
Table C.4.1 Drainage Fixture Unit Load Ratings For Various Plumbing Fixtures
Drainage Fixture
Fixture or Group Units (dfu)
Bathtub with or without shower head 2
Clothes washer standpipe 3
Dishwasher on separate trap 2
Floor drain 2
Kitchen sink only or kitchen sink

with food waste grinder 2
Kitchen sink with dishwasher and

with or without food waste grinder 3
Laundry tub 2
Lavatory 1
Show stall 2
Water closet 4
Bathroom group 6
Half-bath group 4
Laundry group 4
1 These are suggested ratings, subject to change from plumbing code

modifications resulting from amendment procedures. It is believed that the
RSV criteria will remain valid with modest changes in fixture unit ratings
from the values suggested here.
C-ll
Table C.4.2 Minimum Sizes for Individual and Common Fixture Vents and
for Stack Vents
Water Fall Load Served

Distance* by Vent^ Vent Size
Type of Vent (ft) (dfu) (in)
Individual fixture vent up to 8 3 and less 1/2
4 3/4
over 8 3 and less 3/4

through 18
4 1
Common fixture vent up to 8 3 and less 3/4

or waste stack vent
4 through 6 1
over 8
through 18 6 and less 1
Soil stack vent up to 8 6 and less 1
7 through 15 1-1/4
15 through 30 1-1/2
over 8 6 and less 1-1/4

through 18
7 through 15 1-1/2
16 through 30 2
* The vertical distance the water from the highest fixture (served by the
vent) falls before being diverted by the first vented horizontal drain
in its path, i.e., a vented horizontal branch drain or the building drain.
2 Fixture unit loadings for the usual fixtures are given in table C.4.1.
3 Increase one pipe size over listed value if vent length exceeds 25 ft.
C-12
Table C.4.3 Minimum Sizes for Branch Vents *
Number of Fixture
Vents Served Rule for Sizing^
Two One pipe size larger than the largest fixture

vent served
Three Usually one pipe size larger than the largest

fixture vent served; exceptions requiring a
two pipe size increase given in table C.4.4.
Four or more Compute from the formula
A B - Ski X /EAVS
Where Ag = minimum cross sectional area of

branch vent, Al = area of largest fixture
vent served by branch vent and EA VS = sum
,
of areas of all fixture vent served by branch

vent. See table C.4.5 for cross sectional
areas for various nominal pipe sizes.
1 To apply procedure to vent headers, consider each vent connected to header as

a fixture vent and size header as a branch vent.
^ A branch vent need not be larger than would be required by table C.4.6 for a
vent stack serving a DWV system with the same total fixture unit loading as
the system for which the branch vent is being sized.
C-13
.
Table C.4.4 Combinations of Three Fixture Vent Sizes Requiring a Branch Vent
Two Pipe Sizes Larger than Largest Fixture Vent Served by Branch
Vent 1
Sizes of the Three Fixture Vents Served Branch Vent Size

by Branch Vent Required^
Largest Intermediate Smallest
in in in in
1 1 1 1-1/2
1-1/4 1 3/4 2
1-1/4 1 1 2
1-1/4 1-1/4 3/4 2
1-1/4 1-1/4 1 2
1-1/4 1-1/4 1-1/4 2
1-1/2 1-1/2 1-1/4 3
1-1/2 1-1/2 1-1/2 3
^ All other likely combinations of three fixture vent sizes require a branch
vent one pipe size larger than the largest fixture vent served by branch
vent
2 A branch vent need not be larger than would be required by table C.4.6 for
a vent stack serving a similar DWV system with the same total fixture unit
C-14
.
Table C.4.5 Internal Cross Sectional Areas of Various Nominal Sizes of

Pipe
Internal Cross-Sectional Areas 3

Nominal
Diameter Schedule 40 Pipe Copper Tube
Metallic or Non-Mat all ic Ty p e M Type DWY
in in2 in 2 in 2
1/2 0.304 0.254
3/4 .533 .517
1 .864 .874
1-1/4 1.495 1.317
1-1/2 2.036 1.865
2 3.355 3.272
3 7.393 7.235
a Areas for other piping materials and wall thicknesses may be obtained or
calculated from the respective ASTM Standards or the manufacturers'
specifications
C-l 5
Table C.4.6 Minimum Sizes and Maximum Lengths for Vent Stacks
Total Load on Soil or Waste Length of Vent Minimum size of*

Stack Served by Vent Stack Stack Vent Stack Size
(dfu) (ft) (in)
10 and less 36 and less 1-1/4
10 and less 37 or more 1-1/2
1 1 through 30 30 and less 1-1/4
1 1 through 30 31 or more 1-1/2
1 Increase one pipe size if frequent flooded sewer conditions are anticipated.
C-16
.
Table C.4.7 Classification and Sizing of Dry Vents (Figure C.4.2, Example 1)
Applicable Fixture Wall Reduc-

Letter Vent RSV Unit Load Fall Std RSV tion
Designation Classification Criterion Served Distance Size Size (Pipe
(ft) (in) (in) Sizes)
A Waste stack vent Table C.4.2 3 2 1-1/2 3/4 3
B Individual vent Table C.4.2 1 2 1-1/4 1/2 3
C Individual vent Table C.4.2 2 2 1-1/2 1/2 4
D Individual vent Table C.4.2 2 0 1-1/2 1/2 4
E Individual vent Table C.4.2 2 1 1-1/2 1/2 4
F Individual vent Table C.4«2 2 1 1-1/2 1/2 4
G Individual vent Table C.4.2 1 2 1-1/2 1/2 4
H Soil stack vent Table C.4.2 20 10 3 2 1
I Branch vent Table C.4.3 NA NA 1-1/2 3/4 3
J Branch vent Table C.4.3 NA NA 1-1/2 3/4 3
K Branch vent Table C.4.3 NA NA 1-1/2 3/4 3
L Vent stack Table C.4.6 23 NA 2 1-1/4 2
C-17
.
Table C.4.8 Classification and Sizing of Dry Vents (Figure C.4.4, Example 2)
Applicable Fixture Water Reduc-

Letter Vent RSV Unit Load Fall Std RSV tion
Designation Classification Criterion Served Distance Size Size (Pipe
(ft) (in) (in) Sizes)
A Individual vent Table C.4.2 2 1 1-1/2 1/2 4
B Soil Stack vent Table C.4.2 8 2 2 1-1/4 2
C Individual vent Table C.4.2 2 1 1-1/2 1/2 4
D Individual vent Table C.4.2 2 0 1-1/2 1/2 4
E Individual vent Table C.4.2 2 2 1-1/2 1/2 4
F Individual vent Table C.4.2 3 2 1-1/2 1/2 4
C-18
Table C.4.9 Sizing of Vent Headers 3
(Figure C.4.5, Example 2)
Nominal
Diameter
Header Fixture Vents al SA V s aB Required
Element Served (in 2 ) (in 2 ) (in 2 ) (in)
G E, F 0.254 0.508 0.358 3/4
H D, E, F .254 .762 .438 3/4
I A, D, E, F .254 1.016 .509 3/4
B A, C, D, E, F .254 1.270 .570 l

b
a Using rule for branch vents, table C.4.3.
b Element B was previously sized 1-1/4 in as a soil stack vent,

so will not be reduced below 1-1/4 in.
C-19
Figure C.4.1 S
hoiw
showing a
s
Ste
i T
n P Ping fOC 2 ' St ° ry 8ln le
i DWV
standard
S famil y Chouse,
design conforming to the applicable
plumbing code (compare with figure
C.4.2 for RSv/
C-20
Figure C.4.2 Soil-waste-vent piping for 2-story single family townhouse,
showing reduced sizes of dry vents obtainable from RSV design
criteria (compare with figure C.4.1 for standard venting)
C-21
««
ft% y-jp-
^
Figure C.4.3 Soil-waste-vent piping for 1-story single family residence,

showing a standard DWV design conforming to the applicable
plumbing code (compare with figure C.4.4 for RSV)
C-22
design
showing reduced sizes of dry vents obtainable from RSV
criteria (compare with figure C.4.3 for standard venting)
C-23
roof
showing the use of a vent header to reduce the number of
penetrations (compare with figures C.4.3 and C.4.4 showing
five penetrations)
C-24
NBS-1 14A (REV. 2-BC)
U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report NoJ 3. Publication Date
REPORT NO.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
4.
SHEET (See instructions)
NBSIR 84-2860
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. FIELD HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF ONE-AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS WITH

REDUCED-SIZE VENTS
6.
AUTHOR(S)
Robert Wyly, Lawrence S. Galowin
9.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see Instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No.
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 8. Type of Report & Period Covered
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234
10.
SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State, ZIP)
Tri Services
Department of Defense and
11. Department of Housing and Urban Development
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
| |
Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.
ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document Includes a significant
bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)
This report describes hydraulic tests of drain-waste-vent systems with reduced-

size vents installed in single-family housing units at Andrews Air Force Base,
Camp Springs, Maryland. The vent systems of six field units were sized according
to a procedure based on findings in prior laboratory investigations. The tests
reported were conducted on three of the units before occupancy. Principal measure-
ments made were trap-seal reduction and pneumatic pressure excursions in selected
12. vents, using test procedures developed in the laboratory and adapted to field
conditions. Results of the preoccupancy tests showed adequate performance with

the reduced-size vents. A procedure for the design of reduced-size vent systems
is presented that should be of interest to plumbing designers and groups engaged
in updating plumbing codes.
KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries ; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon v
plumbing; reduced size vents; residential plumbing; vent-system; vents
13. AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES
| xl Unlimited
| |
For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS 104
| |
Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20402. IS. Pr.ce
(_3 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161 $ 13.00
jlCOuu OC 80 4 ) p i '
.
'

Govpub C13

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Govpub C13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S

NAT'L INST. OF STAND & TECH

Issued October 1 984

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Issued October 1984

Department of Housing and Urban Development

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

This report describes hydraulic tests of drain-waste-vent systems with

The program described in this report originated in response to a technical

Rathbone, Plumbing Engineer. Capt. Kenneth Hanna (USAF) provided liaison

1.1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF PROGRAM 1

1.3 PERFORMANCE CONCEPTS AND GENERAL APPROACH 2

2.1 SIZING CRITERIA 5

3. INSTALLATION AND TESTING OF RSV SYSTEMS IN THE FIELD 17

3.1 ORGANIZATION AND SEQUENCE OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES 17

4.1 ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE OF THE RSV SYSTEM AT ANDREWS AIR FORCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

APPENDIX A. PREOCCUPANCY TESTS: DETAILED INFORMATION A-l

APPENDIX B. POST-OCCUPANCY STUDY B-l

APPENDIX C. RECOMMENDED CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN AND

Table 1. Organization and Sequence of Activities Relating to

Table 2. Characteristics of Instruments and Purposes for

Table 3. Symbols for Fixtures 26

Table 4. Water Level in Waste Fixtures for Discharge Rate

Table 5. Guide for Selecting Test Loads for Residential Plumbing

Table 6. Plan for Testing Sequence and Certain Test Conditions in

Table 7. Waste Fixture Discharge Characteristics Determined from

Table 8. Water Closet Water Consumption Measured in D/a Unit 31

Table 9. Summary of Findings on Trap-Seal Reductions D, E, and F

Table 10. Summary of Findings on Vent Pressures in D, E, and F

Table A. 1.1 Trap-Seal Reduction with Vent Terminal Open A-4

Table A. 2.1 Summary of Findings on Trap-Seal Reductions in D and F

Table A. 2. 2 Trap-Seal Reduction with Vent Terminal Closed A-8

Table A. 2. 3 Effect on Idle Trap-Seal Reduction of Repeated Loading

Table C.4.3 Minimum Sizes for Branch Vents C-13

Table C.4.4 Combinations of Three Fixture Vent Sizes Requiring a

Table C.4.5 Internal Cross Sectional Areas of Various Nominal Sizes

Table C.4.7 Classification and Sizing of Dry Vents (Figure C.4.2,

Table C.4.8 Classification and Sizing of Dry Vents (Figure C.4.4,

Table C.4.9 Sizing of Vent Headers (Figure C.4.5, Example 2) C-19

Figure 1. Aerial view of test houses 4

Figure 2. Floor plan for D-house (as designed)

Figure 3. Floor plan for E-house (as designed) 8

Figure 4. Floor plan for F-house (as designed) 9

Figure 5. Original design, D-house soil, waste, and vent piping,

Figure 6. Original design. E-house soil, waste, and vent piping,

Figure 7. Original design, F-house soil, waste, and vent piping,

Figure 8. Modified original design, F-house soil, waste, and vent

Figure 9. As-built design, D-house soil, waste, and vent piping,

Figure 12. Instrumentation and data acquisition system 34

Figure 13. Method for measurement of cumulative time outside

Figure 14. Definition of trap-seal reductions for testing purposes ... 36

Figure A. 2.1 Pattern of trap failures with repetitive, heavy loading

Figure B.1.1 Schematic of automatic monitoring instrumentation for

Figure B.1.2 Schematic of post-occupancy field data acquisition system . B-7

Figure B.2.1 Distribution of cold water flow rates in master bath

Figure B.2.2 Distribution of hot water flow rates in master bath

Figure B.2.5 Distribution of cold water flow rates in master bath

Figure B.2.6 Distribution of hot water flow rates in master bath

Figure C.4.1 Soil-waste-vent piping for 2-story single family

Figure C.4.5 Soil-waste-vent piping for 1-story single family

Common vent - a fixture vent connecting at the junction of two fixture